Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Koldo]

Or this here.....


Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers | Mother Jones

I have yet to talk about this, but I would like to make my opinion clear on this: If the actions of a company show that it willfully supports something in some relevant way, then it can't use the religious freedom argument to exempt itself from supporting it in some other occasion when required.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The contraceptives that they are fighting against are proven foeticides. This is obviously a big deal to pro-lifers.

I'm not religious but I am pro-life. Clearly some do deeply object to the thought of funding someone else's foeticides.

See article....
Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?

• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

If these pills/devices simply prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus then how is it an abortion?....

 

[Revoltingest]

Never said it was...

True, but since you left males out entirely, it appeared necessary to point out a male perspective.

While all of this is true this wasn't the point I was making. Many women who use birth control use it for various medical reasons which go beyond preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Well, spluh....I'm not objecting to that obvious area of agreement.

 

[Nakosis]

Then what did you actually mean to say?

What I said. That only people with political agendas would be concerned.

If women's reproductive rights are just part of a political agenda to you I might see how you could see this as being implied.

 

[crossfire]

The contraceptives that they are fighting against are proven foeticides. This is obviously a big deal to pro-lifers.

Nope. Morning after pill will not disturb an already established pregnancy, therefore it is not a foeticide.

I'm not religious but I am pro-life. Clearly some do deeply object to the thought of funding someone else's foeticides.

Perhaps getting some correct information might help?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have yet to talk about this, but I would like to make my opinion clear on this: If the actions of a company show that it willfully supports something in some relevant way, then it can't use the religious freedom argument to exempt itself from supporting it in some other occasion when required.

I completely agree...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True, but since you left males out entirely, it appeared necessary to point out a male perspective.

Well, spluh....I'm not objecting to that obvious area of agreement.

Seemed that way since I didn't include males. They weren't included because their position wasn't germane to the point I was making. Yes....birth control is both a male and female issue to the extent when a male partner is involved. Not so much when the woman is single. But again...the overall point I was making was medical.

 

[beenie]

See article....
Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?

If these pills/devices simply prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus then how is it an abortion?....

Nope. Morning after pill will not disturb an already established pregnancy, therefore it is not a foeticide.


Perhaps getting some correct information might help?

Exactly. The morning after pill delays ovulation, and is much like taking a large dose of regular birth control pills, which do the same thing... suppress ovulation. People are confusing the morning after pill with RU-486, which induces contractions and expels a confirmed pregnancy.

 

[Drolefille]

For what it's worth I saw some statistics - something like 90% of businesses are "Closely held" in the sense that they would qualify under this ruling and slightly over 50% of employees are employed by these businesses. This isn't a tiny exception.

Also to clarify again - the medication/devices in question are NOT abortificants and even if they were they would actually reduce the number of fertilized eggs that failed to implant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it a sin to respond to one of my own posts?

...the USSC is not known for atheistic members. It currently has 6 Catholics
serving (per Huff Po), although Breyer is suspected of lacking faith. (The rest are Jews.)
Can you imagine an atheist or agnostic getting confirmed for the bench? Oh, the horror!

Something I spotted today...
The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court? | Ronald A. Lindsay

In its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court has decided that the religious beliefs of employers, including closely held corporations, take precedence over the rights of employees to necessary medical care. The specific medical care to which the employers objected was certain forms of contraception. The five justices who decided that these employers' objections were entitled to deference are all Catholics. (One Catholic justice, Sotomayor -- a woman -- dissented from the majority ruling.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is it a sin to respond to one of my own posts?

Something I spotted today...
The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?*|*Ronald A. Lindsay

Good points.

It shows how representation truly matters in government. A complete lack of representation of atheists and a majority representation of Catholics in the current SCOTUS is worthy of questioning in this matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good points.

It shows how representation truly matters in government. A complete lack of representation of atheists and a majority representation of Catholics in the current SCOTUS is worthy of questioning in this matter.

The other 3 justices are Jews, so both religions are over-represented.
Of course, what bothers me is that there are so many willing to re-write the
Constitution, & so few constitutional originalists. Gimme more of the latter,
& they could be Scientologists, Spaghetti Monsterists or even Revoltingifarians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The other 3 justices are Jews, so both religions are over-represented.
Of course, what bothers me is that there are so many willing to re-write the
Constitution, & so few constitutional originalists. Gimme more of the latter,
& they could be Scientologists, Spaghetti Monsterists or even Revoltingifarians.

A constitutional originalist Supreme Court would probably find itself with little to do, since its current main role of judicial review of legislation can't be found in an originalist/constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

A truly originalist Supreme Court wouldn't have struck down these requirements of the ACA, since an originalist interpretation argues that only the legislative branch should enact and repeal laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

A constitutional originalist Supreme Court would probably find itself with little to do, since its current main role of judicial review of legislation can't be found in an originalist/constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

Strict constructionism is much different from originalism. The former is about rigid interpretation of the language, while the latter is about divining intent of the framers. Ruling based upon intent gives more flexibility, eg, reading freedom of "speech" & the "press" as being more than just the spoken word or printed material. The Constitution's author's intent would be free communication, eventually including media not envisioned at the time. A strict constructionist would lean towards more limited protections.

A truly originalist Supreme Court wouldn't have struck down these requirements of the ACA, since an originalist interpretation argues that only the legislative branch should enact and repeal laws.

It seems more likely that an originalist would strike down the entire ACA, since the Constitution doesn't grant the authority for the fed to impose such a requirement on companies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Strict constructionism is much different from originalism. The former is about rigid interpretation of the language, while the latter is about divining intent of the framers. Intent gives more flexibility, eg, reading freedom of "speech" & the "press" as being more than just the spoken word or printed material. The Constitution's author's intent would be free communication, eventually including media not envisioned at the time. A strict constructionist would lean towards more limited protections.

It seems more likely that an originalist would strike down the entire ACA, since the Constitution doesn't grant the authority for the fed to impose such a requirement on companies.

Does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to strike down laws?

 

[Revoltingest]

Does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to strike down laws?

Ruling on the constitutionality of laws is a primary function of theirs...
...if one takes an originalist view of Articles 3 & 6 in the Constitution.

This exemplifies why I prefer originalism, ie, the framer's intent isn't defeated
by having meaning lost due to brevity or awkward language in the document.
Revisionism suffers from the danger of going against original intent, eg the Petty
Offense Doctrine's gutting of our right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions.

 

[Tarheeler]

Does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to strike down laws?

Ruling on the constitutionality of laws is a primary function of theirs...
...if one takes an originalist view of Articles 3 & 6 in the Constitution.

No, it doesn't. While the Constitution names the Supreme Court as the final court of the US, it was never specifically given the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws or to strike them down. That power ( judicial review) was inferred and assumed by the Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it doesn't. While the Constitution names the Supreme Court as the final court of the US, it was never specifically given the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws or to strike them down. That power ( judicial review) was inferred and assumed by the Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803

Does not your explanation comport wonderfully with what I posted about original intent?
The roots of judicial review are ancient, & were (IMO) implied by the traditions of English
law incorporated into the Constitution.
Remember that I'm arguing for originalism, not strict constructionism.

 

[Tarheeler]

Does not your explanation comport wonderfully with what I posted about original intent above?
The roots of judicial review are ancient, & were (IMO) implied by the traditions of English law
incorporated into the Constitution.
Remember that I'm arguing for originalism, not strict constructionism.

I'm not concerned with what you are arguing. A question was asked, and you provided incorrect information; the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. It is a power that was assumed through an interpretation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not concerned with what you are arguing. A question was asked, and you provided incorrect information; the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. It is a power that was assumed through an interpretation.

If you disregard what I'm arguing, then it's gonna be hard for you to argue with me.
Note that I never said the power of judicial review was specifically mentioned.
Rather, I argue it's an implied power under the theory of original intent.