that Hobby Lobby decision...

[Sbee]

one funny thing we haven't really discussed is how fucked up the religious freedom is that Hobby Lobby is so concerned about.

Hey, we have a woman employee who doesn't want to get pregnant, well let's make sure our health care plan doesn't help her to not get pregnant. if that slut does choose to have sex, let's hope she gets a baby that she doesn't want.

do they just hate pleasure fucking or do they just want to make it a gamble, like russian roulette?

 

[Thumb]

Hey, we have a woman employee who doesn't want to get pregnant, well let's make sure our health care plan doesn't help her to not get pregnant.

To be fair, I don't believe what you're saying accurately outlines the facts.

Plan B; or the morning after pill, does not stop a person from getting pregnant.

It's for women who are already pregnant, or believe there is a chance they may be, likely after having un-protected sex. While I think the SC decision was wrong and may have opened up pandora's box when it comes to employers getting to decide what they want to cover, let's not make this about something it's not.

 

[TheVictors]

The author does a good job of making it seem like hypocrisy but HL isn't profiting from these products. 401k plan assets are not the property of the employer and the employer doesn't profit from appreciation in those investments. Their employees own those accounts, make all of the investment elections and earn all of the returns from them. Most 401ks have investment options that allow participants to avoid investments they object to. It doesn't say whether the HL plan does or not, but if it doesn't, HL may be unaware of this "problem" within their funds. But if they do offer such an investment it's up to the participants to choose it. If anything, the author should be commending HL for not forcing their morality onto their employees by limiting the investment choices participants can make with their own money.

I just knew someone would go looking and find something. Like I said odd that Forbes ran something referencing lefty research.

 

[tinselwolverine]

To be fair, I don't believe what you're saying accurately outlines the facts.

Plan B; or the morning after pill, does not stop a person from getting pregnant.

It's for women who are already pregnant, or believe there is a chance they may be, likely after having un-protected sex. While I think the SC decision was wrong and may have opened up pandora's box when it comes to employers getting to decide what they want to cover, let's not make this about something it's not.

Thank you.

That's the third time that clarification has been pointed out on this thread, the first two times by me - you did explain the specific details of what the morning after pill does more than I did though.

Let's hope the rule of threes applies - the rule that something needs to be said three times before it sinks, not the rule of threes regarding celebrity passings on.

 

[Sbee]

To be fair, I don't believe what you're saying accurately outlines the facts.

Plan B; or the morning after pill, does not stop a person from getting pregnant.

It's for women who are already pregnant, or believe there is a chance they may be, likely after having un-protected sex. While I think the SC decision was wrong and may have opened up pandora's box when it comes to employers getting to decide what they want to cover, let's not make this about something it's not.

They won't cover an IUD either, that's very cost prohibitive if your health care plan doesn't cover it. It requires a trip to the obgyn and follow up visit but it's more effective because there is no daily pill to take or forget to take

 

[tinselwolverine]

No surprise here -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Can't say I've ever read Forbes, citing Mother Jones but facts be facts ...

No, just Mary ...she likes football. Said it's one reason she likes working at HL - every Sunday off.

I think byco talks to that other Mary pretty frequently.

She might be a football fan; more of a Saturday fan I would suppose, She might have a special place in Her (Immaculate) Heart for Notre Dame.

 

[tinselwolverine]

They won't cover an IUD either, that's very cost prohibitive if your health care plan doesn't cover it. It requires a trip to the obgyn and follow up visit but it's more effective because there is no daily pill to take or forget to take

Stand up comic chick I dated; part of her routine...

"The thing about my mom, she's always snooping in my business...I confronted her, I said 'Mom...I can't believe you snooped for my birth control...' 'I wasn't snooping; I was cleaning up, and I just happened to find it...' '...you just happened to find my IUD?'"

 

[Monster]

*bashes head against wall*

 

[TheVictors]

*bashes head against wall*

Lol

 

[mhughes0021]

They won't cover an IUD either, that's very cost prohibitive if your health care plan doesn't cover it. It requires a trip to the obgyn and follow up visit but it's more effective because there is no daily pill to take or forget to take

Lets be real...they dont want to cover anything. Its the American way....squeeze everything we can out of the employee, numbers have to be better year after year so work the employee harder, more work less time, reduce my costs....and then they wonder why they have a turnover problem so they put millions into researching why they have a turnover problem instead of just paying for the fucking $.30 condom.

 

[Spartanmack]

I just knew someone would go looking and find something. Like I said odd that Forbes ran something referencing lefty research.

I hear you but in his case it's more spin than an actual find. It would have been slightly more credible if they picked on them for buying products made in China where the state mandates abortion as part of their population control policies.

 

[Michchamp]

They won't cover an IUD either, that's very cost prohibitive if your health care plan doesn't cover it. It requires a trip to the obgyn and follow up visit but it's more effective because there is no daily pill to take or forget to take

that's true... but why should they have to cover IUD's? it don't say anything about a right to an IUD in the Constitution...

...says every dickhead who is pulling arguments out of his ass about this.

 

[Michchamp]

the more I read about this, the more I think this is opinion is just completely fucking awful.

it creates an unworkable standard, and the logic underpinning it makes no sense. it's a disaster for lower courts that now need to try to apply it to future cases.

under the existing legal standards for reviewing a law under the RFRA, before you can even begin to find relief for Hobby Lobby's position, you have to find that something "burdens" a party's exercise of religion. EVEN ASSUMING the ridiculous notion that Hobby Lobby itself is a "person" who can exercise their religion... you have to find that providing other people with a means to buy birth control is a burden on Hobby Lobby's Christian faith. That's fucking nuts. There's just no way that can be true here, unless Alito is using his own dictionary definition of the word "burden."

basically, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas can't die soon enough for this country. Hopefully at least one of them in the next 2 years...

 

[Spartanmack]

the more I read about this, the more I think this is opinion is just completely fucking awful.

it creates an unworkable standard, and the logic underpinning it makes no sense. it's a disaster for lower courts that now need to try to apply it to future cases.

under the existing legal standards for reviewing a law under the RFRA, before you can even begin to find relief for Hobby Lobby's position, you have to find that something "burdens" a party's exercise of religion. EVEN ASSUMING the ridiculous notion that Hobby Lobby itself is a "person" who can exercise their religion... you have to find that providing other people with a means to buy birth control is a burden on Hobby Lobby's Christian faith. That's fucking nuts. There's just no way that can be true here, unless Alito is using his own dictionary definition of the word "burden."

basically, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas can't die soon enough for this country. Hopefully at least one of them in the next 2 years...

But they are providing other people with a means to buy birth control - salaries and wages - the means they provide for virtually every other thing their employees buy.

 

[tinselwolverine]

*bashes head against wall*

But they are providing other people with a means to buy birth control - salaries and wages - the means they provide for virtually every other thing their employees buy.

Maybe Hobby should also start buying them Happy Meals and housing and lawn gnomes.

 

[Michchamp]

the other thing... I posted this when it came out earlier this year, but it's still relevant now:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012?three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit?show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
​

link. so... which is it, Hobby Lobby?

...the Greens object to covering Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus?a process the Greens consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that emergency contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a fertilized egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it harder for sperm to swim to the egg. The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.
​

(emphasis mine)

that's what this whole thing was, just some reason to bitch about the Affordable Care Act, and the Five Shitty Justices went along with it because they enjoy bitching about the Affordable Care Act too, not that the jurisprudence and reasoning underlying it is solid. It's complete hypocrisy, but it's not like hypocrisy ever stops assholes from doing anything...

 

[Spartanmack]

the other thing... I posted this when it came out earlier this year, but it's still relevant now:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
​

link.

You trying to steal Vic's thunder? He already posted that link. I think he understood it was BS though. If you don't understand how 401(k)s work, I'll refer you to post #56 - clearly, it's just more libtard smoke and mirrors, ignoring facts to make HL look like hypocrites...

 

[Michchamp]

You trying to steal Vic's thunder? He already posted that link. I think he understood it was BS though. If you don't understand how 401(k)s work, I'll refer you to post #56 - clearly, it's just more libtard smoke and mirrors, ignoring facts to make HL look like hypocrites...

i understand how 401ks work... didn't see vic posted that link. and don't ignore the second point in my post.

either way, it's hard to make a distinction between bitching about your employees using birth control (although only after the Affordable Care Act passed and you wanted something to bitch about) and contributing money to a pension plan investing in mutual funds that include manufacturers who are making the same birth control products you have some moral objection to.

You'd think if it was that important to them, they would've been more particular about their investments, not to mention object to the fact that their employee health plans covered plan B and IUDs LONG BEFORE the ACA passed, but whatever... as I said, hypocrisy never stopped religious Right assholes before, why should it here?

...AAAAAaand none of this changes the fact that the majority's reasoning in Hobby Lobby is complete shit, awful, vomit inducing, illogical, and wrong. You understand that, don't you? You're not trying to argue THAT at least, right?

No. of course not.

 

[Spartanmack]

i understand how 401ks work... didn't see vic posted that link. and don't ignore the second point in my post.

either way, it's hard to make a distinction between bitching about your employees using birth control (although only after the Affordable Care Act passed and you wanted something to bitch about) and contributing money to a pension plan investing in mutual funds that include manufacturers who are making the same birth control products you have some moral objection to.

You'd think if it was that important to them, they would've been more particular about their investments, not to mention object to the fact that their employee health plans covered plan B and IUDs LONG BEFORE the ACA passed, but whatever... as I said, hypocrisy never stopped religious Right assholes before, why should it here?

...AAAAAaand none of this changes the fact that the majority's reasoning in Hobby Lobby is complete shit, awful, vomit inducing, illogical, and wrong. You understand that, don't you? You're not trying to argue THAT at least, right?

No. of course not.

401(k)s are not pension plans, they are defined benefit plans and the plan assets are not owned by hobby lobby, they're owned by the employees. You should be commending HL for not forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees by not restricting their choices for retirement investing - just like they're not restricting access to birth control (not paying is not restricting access). But you're too dumb to realize it so you cry wolf, or more accurately, jump up and down and yell "see, see, they're bad" every time you read some idiot on Mother Jones.

The only thing I've argued about this ruling is it is too narrow. HL and other employers should not be compelled to offer any compensation other than legal tender. Offering health insurance is a choice - a benefit to employees - it should be up to Employers to determine what they're willing to pay for and what personal expenses employees pay for themselves.

I ignored the second point because there is not proof in that piece that HL ever offered Plan B or Ella and everything I've read said they don't and haven't. And even if they did, there is a distinct possibility they were unaware and only learned of it after reviewing their plans for compliance w/ the ACA. Either way, I don't really care as I think the whole ACA is unconstitutional and a disastrous piece of crap legislation - if it has to be dismantled piece by piece, so be it.

 

[Michchamp]

it's not a pension plan, it's a 401k plan and the plan assets are not owned by hobby lobby, they're owned by the employees. You should be commending HL for not forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees by not restricting their choices for retirement investing. But you're too dumb to realize it so you cry wolf, or more accurately, jump up and down and yell "see, see, they're bad" every time you read some idiot on Mother Jones.

so, as per usual, you can't dispute the point about contributing to employees pensions invested in birth control manufacturers, but taking issue with allowing those employees to use their healthcare plans to purchase certain forms of bc (and in both cases, only after the ACA was enacted)... so you'll just say a bunch of shit and hope everyone else here is too stupid to understand that you lost.

The only thing I've argued about this ruling is it is too narrow. HL and other employers should not be compelled to offer any compensation other than legal tender. Offering health insurance is a choice - a benefit to employees - it should be up to Employers to determine what they're willing to pay for and what personal expenses employees pay for themselves.

well... the court can't simply issue decrees to end things you don't like... sorry, that's not how the legal system works.