Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Jewish deli example to me is a no brainer, yet, it doesn't sound like it is to D.W.
At first I thought the same thing, and I still find some of his reasoning problematic, but the general idea that there is a distinction between personally constraining oneself by religious rules and attempting to constrain others based on one's own religious rules is valid... but again, where he goes from there is questionable.

quote:
Which is begging the question, since the only reason its "built in by default," is because of arbitrary government action.
My understanding is that the inclusion of contraceptive and related services in insurance policies predated government mandated inclusion, at least partly because the insurance companies had calculated that the preventative aspects of these services, if provided up front, more than offset the costs associated with not providing them.

Is this not the case?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was unaware that the prohibition of working on Saturday was at all related to a deli being considered Kosher. I thought the designation was more (or exclusively) to do with procedure in food handling. I didn't realize that someone who was not following all aspects (or is it just this aspect) of the religion risked jeopardizing the Kosher qualification.

But that’s only part of it. In this case I can’t figure out how the government could dictate hours of operation so I don’t see this example as being illustrative of the broader point.

As a FYI I am probably even less tolerant of other religions interference in my day to day dealings than I am Christian ones. I was raised roman catholic so there are probably tons of things that pop up that I don’t even notice because it’s “always been that way”. I hold no special spite for Christians or their beliefs. I share many of them. I just believe it takes a special (and destructive) kind of ego to claim certainty when it comes to the divine and that it becomes dangerous when you are allowed any power what so ever to steer the behavior of others based on that certainty.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My understanding is that the inclusion of contraceptive and related services in insurance policies predated government mandated inclusion, at least partly because the insurance companies had calculated that the preventative aspects of these services, if provided up front, more than offset the costs associated with not providing them.
In general, yes, but prior to the ACA the definitions on what constituted a health plan were fairly lax, and as such allowed employees to be offered if not actively put into by default health plans that didn't amount to much more than a scam to milk back part of their wages and claim tax breaks while providing the illusion of coverage. The ACA set up the regulatory mechanism to create a better baseline set of qualifications based on medical evidence and analysis of what provided the best baseline, with contraceptive coverage being a no-brainer as part of that baseline.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the function of the contraceptives in question:

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/the-anti-science-of-the-pro-life-movement-and-plan-b/

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/if-governments-were-really-serious-about-reducing-abortion-iuds-would-have-no-co-payment/

http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/Sivin.pdf

quote:
The Hurst et al. study in nonhuman primates thus demonstrates two points. First, the study shows the comparative rarity of demonstrable fertilization when the IUD is in situ. This indicates that the IUD acts as a contraceptive. Second, the study demonstrates that the rate of embryonic loss per mating at mid-cycle of an ovulatory cycle is the same among users of a small plastic IUD as among nonusers of contraception. This indicates that the IUD is no more an abortifacient than is unprotected intercourse at mid-cycle.
quote:
Summary and Conclusion
No studies show that IUDs destroy developing embryos at
rates higher than those found in women who are not using
contraceptives. Studies of early pregnancy factors have not
shown statistically significant differences in transient
levels of hCG between IUD and control groups, a sign
of early abortion. The small, careful study by Segal et
al. (1985) found no transient rise of hCG in the IUD group.
The highly sensitive assay in a larger sample of IUD
users, by Wilcox et al. (1985), suggests that an upper
limit of only 3 or 4 percent of ovulatory matings with
an IUD in situ might show transient rises of hCG.



[ July 10, 2014, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
At first I thought the same thing, and I still find some of his reasoning problematic, but the general idea that there is a distinction between personally constraining oneself by religious rules and attempting to constrain others based on one's own religious rules is valid... but again, where he goes from there is questionable.

Like I said, if we're at the point where its a choice between doing business or keeping your faith - when it doesn't have to be - we've crossed a line.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the government picked the fight specifically to try and erode religious rights. They could have easily for instance insisted that the mandate apply to all employers, yet they specifically exempted churches and religiously affiliated 501(c)(3)'s. I think they did that because the inarguable conflict would have been between compliance with the mandate or existence for those organizations, and the court's would never come down on the government's side. But they choose to take this all the way to the SC, notwithstanding that they never questioned the sincerity of the belief specifically because they thought the court would follow some version of Pyrtolin's "theory" and insist that participation in the market through profit seeking enterprise means you have to leave your religion at home.
quote:
quote:
Which is begging the question, since the only reason its "built in by default," is because of arbitrary government action.
My understanding is that the inclusion of contraceptive and related services in insurance policies predated government mandated inclusion, at least partly because the insurance companies had calculated that the preventative aspects of these services, if provided up front, more than offset the costs associated with not providing them.

Is this not the case?

I never had a plan that covered IUD's for instance, and they were often slow to cover new birth control methods - funny how they were risky until they were off patent.

I still don't see any plans that cover condoms notwithstanding their abosolutely proven effect on disease transmission rates.

So, effectively, yes there are some economic benefits, but no, the case has been overstated and was by no means uniformly implied.

Another simple example. Almost always cheaper to have an abortion than carry to term. How many plans cover abortions?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They could have easily for instance insisted that the mandate apply to all employers, yet they specifically exempted churches and religiously affiliated 501(c)(3)'s.
They did make it universal to all health plans, until those organizations demanded that they be able to suppress that coverage in plans that they bought, which is where HHS came up with it's religious exemption waivers, creating a mechanism for the insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage directly to policy holders without going through the actual plans that the policy holders had.

One of your consistent errors here is that you keep presenting this as a mandate on employers. It's not. It's a mandate on insurers to provide the coverage as part of the baseline package.

[ July 10, 2014, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would almost certainly prevent it from being considered kosher.
I doubt that. I can buy kosher products at WalMart. There may be *other* reasons that a Jewish owner could not remain open on Sunday, even with non-Jewish staff, but I don't think it's designation as Kosher (which applies to the products sold only, I believe) would be it.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Another simple example. Almost always cheaper to have an abortion than carry to term. How many plans cover abortions?
As of 2002, 87% of employer sourced plans covered them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
It would almost certainly prevent it from being considered kosher.
I doubt that. I can by kosher products at WalMart.
Working in the kitchen on the Sabbath would be the possible problem. Of course the easy solution there would be to hire someone to only sell pre-packaged foods on that day, or to conduct all the business transactions the day before and open so that those people could pick up their orders.

There are ways around it, but the parallel is bad because it puts a direct onus on individual behavoir to actively do something rather than setting product standards that would allow third parties to perhaps choose to do something that the religious person in question finds objectionable.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
On the function of the contraceptives in question:

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/the-anti-science-of-the-pro-life-movement-and-plan-b/

From Plan B's own web site:

Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One-Step® contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills, but works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).
quote:
No studies show that IUDs destroy developing embryos at rates higher than those found in women who are not using
contraceptives.

The disclosure docs for IUDs beat around the bush, I'm going to have pull older versions that were express on the point. In any event you can still find it stated on any number of medical reference works that IUDs may function by preventing implantation, and you will find it even in the current versions of Mirena and Paragards disclosures that they may operate to prevent pregancy by changing the uterine wall (which is a vague way of saying they may possible prevent implantation).

In any event, the statistics are absolutely correct that you cite, there are less implantations apparently refused in IUD cases than in non-IUD cases. But given that IUD's are birth control methods that doesn't really say anything usefull to the point, it just says that after multiple ways in which they may prevent pregnancy that don't allow fertilization to occur - which HL doesn't have an issue with given they provide other birth control methods - they may still operate by preventing the very few fertilizations to implant. There is no evidence that suggests that the rate of implantation refusal (after fertilization has occurred) is not massively increased with the use of an IUD, other than they know for a fact that fertilization does occur and that uterine implantation almost never does in the presence of the IUD.

[ July 10, 2014, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A number of Kosher delis are open on Saturday.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No. A health plan is a product. I won't accept another fake argument from you based on the idea that you get to set arbitrary definitions.
A product has a physical form or presence. A health plan is a service- specifically it an arrangement for a company to pay medical bills that you incur within the scope of its coverage.

quote:
Since this has never been mandatorily covered before,
A completely absurd and irrelevant condition. Failing to do something essential in the past doesn't make it wrong to correct that mistake and start doing it going forward.

quote:
and is still not mandatorily covered for millions of women what you are asserting is a false level of importance.
It is a mandatory part of any new plan offered going forward. Grandfathering to smooth a transition or lack of access are also completely absurd and irrelevant arguments to make about whether a given regulation is valid.

quote:
It's closer to insisting that the backseats have to be linen, faux leather or vinyl and not being willing to have real leather as option.
Doubling down on your medical ignorance doesn't make you any less wrong.

quote:
You've "defined" a health plan as an undifferentiated service, rather than a specific bundling of thousands of services (which is the far more accurate description), specifically so you can make the definitional argument that no one piece is being paid for by the employer.
I haven't defined it as such, that is exactly what it is, regardless of the fact that when the terms of the service are being set additional options can be added. The money used to buy the plans goes into a undifferentiated account at the insurer, which then in turn makes the calls on what it will and will not pay for based on how it interprets the terms of service that it has with any given policy holder. If it turns out that it charged to little for any given plan or set of plans, coverage doesn't suddenly stop for those plans, because the payments aren't coming out of a plan-specific fund, they're coming out of the general pool of money the insurer has accumulated across all of its plans an allocated to coverage payments.

What's more you're continuing to push the false implication that allowing something to be paid for is equivalent to compelling someone to get it and have it paid for. The fact that a plan includes a certain kind of coverage give no indication as to whether that coverage will be used, never mind that it will be used in the specific way that it needs to be applied to even reach the potential for the moral assertion to be relevant.

quote:
That argument absolutely fails in the single issue version I asked about before, yet you skipped the tough question there.

I did not skip it. I answer it very directly and pointed out that the question highlights exactly what the difference is between buying something for someone and giving someone something that they might possibly end up using in a way you find distasteful. If HL was offering the plan inhouse, out of its own accounts, then it would have a little more ground to work with,. But the plan is coming from a third party and HL is making a payment on behalf of the employee to give the employee that third party service as part of their agreed compensation. The possibility that it could be used immorally is no different than the possibility that cash they pay the employee can be used immorally; it's none of their business, and it represents a direct burden on the employee to go out of there way to force the third party to act as their moral agent and actively add conditions that restrict the ways that the employee can use their plan.

quote:
But your analogies all double down on this by pretending a "bus pass" for which the service is actually identical - ie riding on a bus - is the same as thousands of otherwise unrelated events
Indeed- just as the baseline definition for what is required for basic health plan is now identical across the board, so that everyone can be assured of a minimum standard of access and coverage if someone tries to sell them something labeled as a health plan. There are certainly options to get fancier options tied on (upgrades to multi-zone rides, or special event shuttles etc...) but the core product is the standard that everyone can expect going forward. And no matter how much you try to assert that you should be the authority on determining what is or is not a basic essential service, the medical community at large is much better equipped to make that call, which is why they were the ones consulted on what should be in that baseline standard and not arm-chair quarterbacks like you that don't actually understand the nature of the various treatments, never mind the their impact on overall health.

quote:
It's a complete and cowardly avoidance of the real issue though to assert that forcing inclusion in a health plan is the same thing as trying to take away an employees ability to make a choice with their own money.
Do you really want to try to stand on the notion that people are just as likely to pay out of pocket for something they needs as they are to get it taken care of if coverage for it is included in a health plan or something similar that helps to lower the out of pocket costs?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One-Step® contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills, but works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).
Which is to say "It doesn't do this, but it would cost more than it's worth to get the FDA to take this disclaimer off the paper work, so we'll waste a bit of ink rather than going through the formal trials to prove that 2+2=4"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why the FDA Included Implantation on Plan B Labels:

From the very beginning of Plan B’s approval process, its manufacturer requested that the FDA not include implantation as one of the ways Plan B works on its label. It appears, though, that during the approval process, most of the research on Plan B investigated whether its active ingredient, the progestin levonorgestrel, could safely and effectively prevent pregnancy. These studies did not explore how Plan B works. So, the FDA may have decided to include implantation on Plan B’s labeling because this mechanism seems to be one of the ways that birth control pills (those that contain levonorgestrel as well as brands that use a different progestin) work--by changing the lining of the uterus. So the FDA may have decided that because the pill may do this, so can Plan B.

But there are two things to keep in mind. One, even if the pill does alter the endometrium, the changes it causes have not been proven to hamper the implantation of a fertilized egg. Yet more importantly, with birth control pills, you are building up progestin doses because you take these pills every day. Research shows that the single levonorgestrel dose in Plan B doesn’t have the strength or time to cause any changes to the lining of the uterus.

Yet those involved in the Plan B approval process report that the FDA decided to include, on the product label, the possibility that Plan B works "theoretically ... by interfering with a number of physiological processes." The FDA then expanded upon this statement by including a list of all the possible ways that Plan B works. Even though there was no scientific proof that Plan B works by preventing eggs from implanting, this mechanism of action was still included on the drug’s label.


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Also, to note- this ruling said nothing about 1st amendment rights. The allowance for being able to demand an exception was made under the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There was no finding that HL had a Constitutional right to demand that the health coverage options not include such coverage, but rather that the HHS mechanism to provide coverage independently when an exemption was granted means that the RFRA demands that a similar accommodation be made for anyone else with religious objections.

Chortle. Why do you think it's called the religuous freedom RESTORATION act, Pyr?
[Big Grin]

Because calling it the public bigotry act wouldn't have sounded as nice, despite the fact that that's about what it amounts to in practice.
I see that you don't have a fracking clue what it's about. The RFRA was enacted nearly unanimously by Congress in response to the Smith case regarding religious use of peyote. Do you actually believe that it's "bigotry" to allow the Native American church to use their peyote sacrament? Or do you concede that your statement was ignorant?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the government picked the fight specifically to try and erode religious rights.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the people behind the HL case picked the fight specifically to try and erode the ACA.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was called the RFRA because both parties of Congress felt overwhelmingly (IIRC more than 90%) that the Smith case showed that SCOTUS (particularly Scalia who had written the horrid opinion) was sodomizing the Freedom of Religion clause over a barrel, and wanted to RESTORE freedom of religion to what it meant before Scalia mutilated it.

Pyr, you really should do some background reading before you shoot off like that. If you'd so much as read a wiki article on the RFRA before describing it as "bigotry" you'd never have said anything so asinine.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the government picked the fight specifically to try and erode religious rights.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the people behind the HL case picked the fight specifically to try and erode the ACA.
The more i think about this, the more i think conservatives picked this fight in order to get an easy meaningless token victory against.the ACA.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The more I think about it the more my head hurts.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's dispicable as a matter.of.national policy to.provide federal mandates which make iuds available at low cost to the 50% wealthiest American women while providing no such assistance to less privileged American women who dont have full time jobs or medical insurance.

Birth control should be provided directly by the government, not imposed on employers.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When someone can show me that HL's insurance company kept funds from different clients completely separate with no interaction between funds, and that the employees were not paying a percentage of the premiums for health insurance, I will consider apologists for this decision not to be brain dead. Until that point, I'm fairly certain that this is a significant step towards third-worlddom. Not because its birth control (but I'd also point out, again, that IUD's are a significant form of health care completely absent from whether or not they are contraceptives), but because of what it means about the power of the relative power structures between employer, employee, and government.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, you always have considered those who disagreed with you on a cultural war issue either brain dead or dishonest.

As i see it, there are serious defects of law, fact, and logic on both sides of this debate, and it's not a particularly important battlefield to begin with. So here your namecalling does less damage than in other discussions where there is actually something big at stake.

I dont think that allowing.employers to opt out of iud coverage is going to to turn America into a third world.country. the suggestion sounds hysterical.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" because of what it means about the power of the relative power structures between employer, employee, and government."

Since when are employers as a group supposed to be treated.as a branch of government? Has Red converted you to.fascism?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Birth control should be provided directly by the government, not imposed on employers.
That applies to health care altogether. Multi-tier health care access is itself a kind of discrimination.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair to Scalia, he has always been willing to defend religion and it's free practice or lack thereof, just so long as it went along with Roman Catholicism.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the government picked the fight specifically to try and erode religious rights.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that the people behind the HL case picked the fight specifically to try and erode the ACA.
The more i think about this, the more i think conservatives picked this fight in order to get an easy meaningless token victory against.the ACA.
I have no problem with the idea that all three of these ideas are simultaneously true. There are a lot of parties involved with different motives. The only gloss I would add is that the "people behind the case" includes the conservatives Pete cites, and which fit KMB's description, but also the named plaintiffs who - no one questioned - have a sincere belief.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, but any arbitrary thing can be a sincere belief. Having a sincere belief is not sufficient to actually make a religious liberty complaint. It's not their sincerity about belief that's in question, it's the completely spurious claim that the regulation represents any kind of burden on them (when the actual structure of the regulation effectively removes any burden or responsibility from them; the regulation is not that Employers must ass a contraceptive coverage rider; the regulation is that insurance companies must, by default, cover all contraceptive claims as part of any new policy issued without any need for a special rider.)

Per Ginsberg:
quote:
I agree with the Court that [the plaintiffs'] religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. But those beliefs, however deeply held, do not suffice to sustain a RFRA claim. RFRA, properly understood, distinguishes between “factual allegations that [plaintiffs'] beliefs are sincere and of a religious nature,” which a court must accept as true, and the “legal conclusion . . . that [plaintiffs'] religious exercise is substantially burdened,” an inquiry the court must undertake.
…
Undertaking the inquiry the Court foregoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families’ religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial. . . .
…
It is doubtful that Congress, when it specified that burdens must be “substantia[l],” had in mind a linkage thus interrupted by independent decisionmakers (the woman and her health counselor) standing between the challenged government action and the religious exercise claimed to be infringed.

As well as pointing out that established president already makes it pretty clear that personal moral feelings on a matter don't let you get to use an employment relationship to actively exercise an option to limit the freedom of others to behave in ways that you find immoral:
quote:
[T]he Lee Court made two key points one cannot confine to tax cases. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice,” the Court observed, “the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” The statutory scheme of employer-based comprehensive health coverage involved in these cases is surely binding on others engaged in the same trade or business as the corporate challengers here, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Further, the Court recognized in Lee that allowing a religion-based exemption to a commercial employer would “operat[e] to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” No doubt the Greens and Hahns and all who share their beliefs may decline to acquire for themselves the contraceptives in question. But that choice may not be imposed on employees who hold other beliefs. Working for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, in other words, should not deprive employees of the preventive care available to workers at the shop next door, at least in the absence of directions from the Legislature or Administration to do so.
Scalia is applying the RFRA poorly when he changes the requirement that the company show a direct, substantial burden into one that effectively allows any assertion of a burden at all to be considered substantial especially when he's making it on the basis that "The government can provide it directly instead, so even the asserted perception of a burden means that the government should just provide it directly"

Ginsberg again:
quote:
[W]here is the stopping point to the “let the government pay” alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work? Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?
I mean, I'm all for that solution, but is opening path to single payer though an avalanche of sincere religious exemption cases really what the Supreme Court should be doing?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Which is to say "It doesn't do this, but it would cost more than it's worth to get the FDA to take this disclaimer off the paper work, so we'll waste a bit of ink rather than going through the formal trials to prove that 2+2=4"

It's up to them. Prove the science and get the paperworked change, and scientific fact would overrule HL on this one. They can oppose a medicine on the grounds that it prevents implantation, but they are held to that belief as well. Prove it doesn't cause implantation and they can no longer prohibit (on that belief). I'm going to drop the argument on Plan B, the studies are not completely convincing or one sided, but it does look like the weight is in favor of revising the description - and I'm not scientist enough to run my own study on it. It doesn't change the opinion here though until they do take those steps.

While I think most of the screams on the left of gloom and doom are grossly overstated, I do think this opinion provides a great deal of risk that other employers would be able to exclude all birth control.

I still the solution is for the government to provide it directly, if it thinks it's vital, as the employer-implentation option is unfair to many women and to some employers.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since when does an overly cautious FDA disclaimer count as the go to source for scientific fact? Especially a statement qualified by "it's possibile" which is an acknowledgement that they don't have any evidence to support that claim but want to hedge their bets.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Spokeswoman Erica Jefferson could not comment on the Supreme Court litigation, but she wrote in an email that “the agency is aware of emerging data that suggests that levonorgestrel emergency contraception does not inhibit or prevent implantation of the fertilized egg.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/22/why-can-t-the-fda-fix-outdated-birth-control-labels.html

Also it isn't 'emerging' that has been known since 1994, before Plan B was approved.

Taskin O, Brown RW, Young DC, et al. High doses of oral contraceptives do not alter endometrial alpha 1 and alpha v beta 3 integrins in the late implantation window. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:850–5.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I see that you don't have a fracking clue what it's about. The RFRA was enacted nearly unanimously by Congress in response to the Smith case regarding religious use of peyote. Do you actually believe that it's "bigotry" to allow the Native American church to use their peyote sacrament? Or do you concede that your statement was ignorant?

Fair enough. I got it crossed with the legislation that was put on the table to let pharmacists deny people medication prescribed by their doctors on moral grounds.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
To be fair to Scalia, he has always been willing to defend religion and it's free practice or lack thereof, just so long as it went along with Roman Catholicism.

That's being too kind to Scalia. In fact, his opinion in Smith, would have screwed over Catholics, making it criminal in many states to give communion wine to Catholics under 21. Tens of thousands of.Catholic priests were facing criminal liability for practicing their faith's most sacred sacrament.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Birth control should be provided directly by the government, not imposed on employers.
That applies to health care altogether. Multi-tier health care access is itself a kind of discrimination.
Agreed, but pushing birth control on the wealthy while not facilitating it to the poor, impacts society and the economy in a uniquely damning way. Malthus and Nero are both cruel, but Nero is more destructive. At least some people survive under Malthus. Nero takes everyone to oblivion. To say they are both bad is true but misses the point.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That applies to health care altogether. Multi-tier health care access is itself a kind of discrimination.
I absolutely agree, Al. However, I do think that private money should always be able to purchase gourmet and cutting edge med care, since all technology progresses with early adopters bearing a disproportionate burden of cost and risk. To change that would be to lengthen the development cycle which means poorer care for everyone.

I also think that limiting birth control to those that least need it, and to those that have most financial and educational resources to provide for children, is a particular form of social stupidity that exceeds the mere unfairness and discrimination of multi-tier health systems.

[ July 11, 2014, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
That applies to health care altogether. Multi-tier health care access is itself a kind of discrimination.
I absolutely agree, Al. However, I do think that private money should always be able to purchase gourmet and cutting edge med care, since all technology progresses with early adopters bearing a disproportionate burden of cost and risk. To change that would be to lengthen the development cycle which means poorer care for everyone.
Sure, but no one has proposed otherwise. Far from it, a reasonable single payer system would not only enable more people to afford such luxury or cutting edge outings, it would enable people who couldn't afford them at all some chance of gaming access if their doctors could present a compelling case for the public payment system to pick up the tab.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one on this forum has proposed otherwise, but there are many in the world.who do argue that one should.not be qble to purchase any medical care except through public channels. I was clarifying my own position.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a reasonable position that you should not be able to buy established, covered services it of pocket. Because that amounts to using wealth to override a need-based distribution system where service availability is limited. Few, if any, systems prohibit access to new services that are not already built into the coverage structure.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D, that's either a reasonable argument against allowing purchase of human organs, or a reprehensibly irrational argument against a billionaire paying extra for house calls.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A number of Kosher delis are open on Saturday.
Probably a number of "kosher-style: delis are open on Saturday, but I would be very surprised if there was even a single, actual deli that kept to kosher dietary standards that was open from Friday sundown until after Saturday sundown.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of kashrut, the HL case is in some ways similar to a sincere Orthodox Jew protesting that his taxes go to pay for food stamps for someone of Jewish birth to purchase and consume a cheeseburger. He has a sincere religious belief that to somehow enable a fellow Jew to commit that sin is morally wrong.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1