1
58
59

For all the butthurt liberals. (livememe.com)

submitted by YosoffNatural Rights Conservative

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cat_bait -22 ポイント-21 ポイント

You are free to have your own opinions but your ignorance is not appreciated. Birth control is not only used for sexual reasons. In fact birth control has numerous health benefits. Liberals and conservatives are both upset that something that can be medically required could be kept from hard working employees.

[–]AGildedPeacock 12 ポイント13 ポイント

Except the four out of twenty birth control medications they took issue with are not used for anything but birth control, and if they were, they'd be covered with no issue, as they have been previously. Please go and read about the case, instead of listening to liberal talking heads about it.

[–]GotDatWMD 1 ポイント2 ポイント

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/02/supreme-court-lets-stand-several-rulings-blocking-enforcement-of-hhs-mandate/

This appears to be an unsettled issue. It looks like the supreme court is letting lower courts decide if this applies to all 20 BC drugs.

[–]PiercePyrite -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

They also took issue with IUD's which are used to treat endometriosis. If the women aren't sexually active there would be no chance of these being used as abortifacients.

[–]AGildedPeacock 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There are other, better, treatments for endometriosis, and IUDs don't really work that well for most. They also come with a lot of risks, which you don't get with medications.

Also, why would you assume these women aren't sexually active? Most people are, if they can help it.

[–]PiercePyrite -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Why would you assume that they necessarily are sexually active? Why assume that they are capable of getting pregnant? Whether there is a better treatment for a particular woman for endometriosis should be for the doctor to decide. Likewise, the risks should be up to the woman.

[–]AGildedPeacock -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Statistically, they're most likely to be sexually active.

Also, know what? It's still up to the woman. Isn't that awesome? It is in no way prohibited for her to get these medications or devices. Not even a little. Her boss just isn't being forced, by a corrupt, cronyist government, to pay for it for her.

[–]PiercePyrite -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It just seems a little odd to me that a woman who has no chance of getting pregnant should have her options restricted because of other people's behavior even if her situation is unusual. What if say she is a nun? What if her husband had a vasectomy?

[–]AGildedPeacock 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Her options aren't limited in any way. You are clearly not paying attention. If she needs the pills, IUD, whatever, for a reason other than birth control, it's still fucking covered. I've already said that. Pay attention.

Also, vasectomies reverse themselves a lot, and I've met a lot of really slutty nuns. The fact that you think they keep to their vows shows a lack of awareness.

[–]PiercePyrite 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If it's part of her compensation as an employee, isn't she paying for it with her time and effort?

[–]wethedownvotedNeoconservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント

i've seen this line of reasoning so many times. how about we handle the exceptional cases exceptionally instead of extrapolating the exceptional to the general as you're doing.

[–]PiercePyrite 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I think that's what Hobby Lobby should do. Find a way to allow for special cases where BC isn't used as an abortifacient.

[–]TheOriginalShummy -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Except people don't seem to understand that NONE of the 20 are abortifacients. Science trumps a religious beliefs on how a drug works. Nothing in the ACA mandates any abortifacients either.

[–]robotoverlordzReagan Conservative 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Science trumps a religious beliefs

Not to the person with religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby believes that life begins the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm. Their right to believe this and to live their lives and conduct their business in accordance with that belief is specifically protected by the Constitution. It's the very first amendment. The drugs they don't want to pay for interfere with the egg, post-fertilization, so in their minds it interferes with a life.

But really, all of that is moot. If Hobby Lobby believed that taking ella caused someone to be possessed by Satan, the outcome of the case would have been the same. Science is an irrelevant distraction in the Constitutional question of whether certain companies should have to act against their religious beliefs, in a limited set of circumstances.

It's not Hobby Lobby's fault this was a case. This kerfuffle is the result of bad legislation that was rushed though congress, without bi-partisan or even popular support, passed in the dead of night and without being thoroughly understood by its very authors ("We'll have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.") Maybe if Democrats were actually concerned with people's ability to access affordable health insurance, instead of just trying to secure more power for the State, Obamacare could have been viable and successful.

[–]TheOriginalShummy 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Way to partially quote me and not understand science. I said science trumps religious belief ON HOW A DRUG WORKS. You are, and they are, flatly wrong that the drug's primary mode of action. It (elle, plan b, iud, etc.) prevents fertilization. This is medical fact. News flash, the egg isn't fertilized moments after copulation. Moreover, if you, or they, are going to argue that implantation interference is against your religion even if it is a minor, secondary mode of action, then you (they) are being hypocritical. 10 of the other 16 contraceptives ALSO inhibit implantation as a secondary mode of action. This isn't hyperbole. It's medical/scientific fact. The modes of action on listed right on the manufacturer's websites for these other 10 drugs. So again, I maintain my stance that science trumps religious beliefs on how something works.

[–]robotoverlordzReagan Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

It (elle, plan b, iud, etc.) prevents fertilization.

And they can also prevent implantation. And, apparently, there's a lot of debate on just how often that happens with Ella.

Look man, don't come at me with attitude. I know how pregnancy works. My point (and the SCOTUS') is that none of that matters. You want Hobby Lobby to pay for Ella or Plan-B, you convince them that implantation is required for conception and that, even naturally, it does not occur 100% of the time. Maybe they'll be swayed by that argument, but if not, that's just too bad. Because what you don't do is order them, under penalty of law, to violate their consciences and act against their beliefs.

Again, maybe if the Left wasn't so aroused by controlling other people's lives, we'd have a lot less of this horrible, messy legislation that should never have seen the light of day in the United States of America.

[–]bongo1138 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

If people are paying into their insurance, what does it matter what HL thinks?

[–]xwhy 4 ポイント5 ポイント

You are free to have your own opinions but your ignorance is not appreciated. You're ignoring the facts in this case and trying to paint strawmen with broad strokes. Nothing medically required is being kept from anyone.

[–]Rommel79Conservative 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Except it won't.