So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[Mister Agenda]

From the department of unintended consequences, I think there's a possibility that this may result in provision of single-payer birth control, which I think could be a wedge for single-payer healthcare. Just thinking out loud.

[Clueless Morgan]

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

I think that is a case by case thing. If the kid is in their mid to late teens but not 18, the kid can be asked by the doctor and be considered old enough. But personally I think that is bullshit because they most likely have been indoctrinated since they were toddlers.

But most definitely you CANNOT deny medical treatment to kids not old enough to make their own decisions. Parents have been arrested and convicted of child endangerment and neglect and in some cases manslaughter or murder. The younger a kid is the less religion can be used as an excuse to deny treatment.

Looked this up:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP3/
American Academy of Pediatrics

ABSTRACT. Parents sometimes deny their children the benefits of medical care because of religious beliefs. In some jurisdictions, exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws restrict government action to protect children or seek legal redress when the alleged abuse or neglect has occurred in the name of religion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that all children deserve effective medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering or death. In addition the AAP advocates that all legal interventions apply equally whenever children are endangered or harmed, without exemptions based on parental religious beliefs. To these ends, the AAP calls for the end of religious exemption laws and supports additional efforts to educate the public about the medical needs of children.

[snip]

Through legislative activity at the federal and state levels, some religious groups have sought, and in many cases attained, government recognition in the form of approved payment for this "nonmedical therapy" and exemption from child abuse and neglect laws when children do not receive needed medical care.

[snip]

The AAP asserts that every child should have the opportunity to grow and develop free from preventable illness or injury. Children also have the right to appropriate medical evaluation when it is likely that a serious illness, injury, or other medical condition endangers their lives or threatens substantial harm or suffering. Under these circumstances, parents and other guardians have a responsibility to seek medical treatment, regardless of their religious beliefs and preferences. Unfortunately, certain groups have obtained exemptions from legal sanctions and state child abuse and neglect reporting laws based on the child's "treatment" by spiritual means, such as prayer. The overall effect has been to limit the government's ability to protect children from abuse or neglect.

So it seems to depend on jurisdictional laws and where religious groups have gained exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws regarding refusing the minors in their care from receiving medical treatment.

OK so I finally got around to reading the damned decision.
[snip]
4. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation who's shareholders all believe contraceptives are morally wrong for religious reasons.

It's my understanding that they are not opposed to all contraceptives, they are opposed to four specific kinds, (Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella), which Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacients - which they're not. But the majority opinion specifically states that because Hobby Lobby believes these contraceptive methods to be abortifacients then they have the right to refuse coverage of them on religious grounds because they oppose abortion:

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella ARE NOT abortifacients. The court's decision is based on what Hobby Lobby believes them to be, not on what they actually are. This is a dangerous precedent.

What do you think of that?

It's a basic self-help situation. If the women employees feel that they are getting the short end then they should quit to show their displeasure.

Yeah, because jobs are so easy to find that women can just throw them away.

[Jenny A]

[

OK so I finally got around to reading the damned decision.
[snip]
4. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation who's shareholders all believe contraceptives are morally wrong for religious reasons.

It's my understanding that they are not opposed to all contraceptives, they are opposed to four specific kinds, (Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella), which Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacients - which they're not. But the majority opinion specifically states that because Hobby Lobby believes these contraceptive methods to be abortifacients then they have the right to refuse coverage of them on religious grounds because they oppose abortion:

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella ARE NOT abortifacients. The court's decision is based on what Hobby Lobby believes them to be, not on what they actually are. This is a dangerous precedent.

Yep. That's exactly what the court said. It acknowledged that use of the contraceptives was not in effect an abortion, but that's no surprise since the Supreme Court has not defined human life as beginning at conception. The shareholders' belief that these particular contraceptives do cause an abortion is based on the shareholders religious belief that human life begins at conception.

Anytime the courts get involved in religious freedom, the question turns primarily on what the persons claiming religious freedom actual believe. It's not a new idea.

[vorlon13]

"Sincerity of belief" is coming up a bit more often. When used to devalue the Pastafarians, for instance, from the AF POV that's not so good. But when it is focused on, let's say, Hobby Lobby, if zealously pursued by competent and well paid legal staff it might be a good thing.

How sincere is Hobby Lobby? There really isn't scripture that addresses morning after chemical abortifacients . . .

well, I guess there is, and the Bible outlines the procedure for doing it.




Ooops!

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Dystopia]

Right wing in the US is not the same as right wing in the rest of the world. Where I live democrats are considered conservatives

They're largely considered conservative here, too. Unfortunately, our system is rigged so as to only accept two parties, so liberals hold their noses and vote Democrat as the alternative is unthinkable.

For the last 25 years, the situation has gotten progressively worse as both parties have shifted to the right. The GOP, trying to fire up its base, runs further and further to the right wing each year and the Democrats chase after them, trying to capture "the center". The theory is that liberals have no where else to go and so are a captive voting block and being "Republican-Lite" is a way to gain support among moderate or "swing" voters. President Clinton perfected this strategy and made it work for him.

The problem is that as the parties shift further right, what becomes "the center"and what becomes "radical" moves accordingly. W Bush, once considered conservative, now appears moderate and Ronald Reagan would be left wing.

What's funny is that members of the GOP seem to have no memory of anything that happened more than a year ago and act as if they're completely unaware of this shift. They really do think Obama is a "socialist" even though he's not even a liberal, by the measure of what liberals in America want. On Obamacare, for example, liberals wanted Medicare-for-all while Obamacare is like the GOP's proposed system in the 90s.

Fed up with this rightward shift in 2010, many disgusted liberals stayed home to punish the Democrats. It didn't work. So we're kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay home or vote 3rd party on election night, Republicans win and Democrats conclude they were "too liberal" and they shift to the right. If we hold our noses and vote Democrat, they continue to think they can take us for granted and throw us under the bus once they win the elections and shift to the right.

If anything is going to save us, its that the GOP is tilting so far to the right that they're on the verge of complete meltdown. Much of their party has already moved into Crazytown where they're completely divorced from reality. The result of this insanity was our flirtation in 2013 with intentional default on our financial obligations and the near destruction of the world economy. Hopefully, the GOP will be producing candidates that are completely unelectable except in to looniest of districts. When the GOP implodes, perhaps the Democrats can split into a liberal and conservative party to restore the balance once again.

You must need to be really faithful to be an american conservative of the republican type.

[Jaysyn]

Another somewhat easy fix for this mess would be to offer an accommodation to religious businesses like the Health and Human Services Department has to non-profits allowing a 3rd party to handle birth control coverage. Personally, I think this should be followed by raising corporate taxes to pay for it. Religious businesses would complain, but wouldn't have a leg to stand on since the tax would be levied uniformly. No one gets to pick & choose where their tax dollars go after they pay the piper.

But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Monday’s 5-4 decision, suggested that the accommodation offered to religious groups could have been a fine solution if provided to for-profit corporations as well.

Quite honestly, it's in our country's best interest to provide birth control to whomever needs it. Orders of magnitude cheaper in the long run. For some reason Neo-Cons aren't really that conservative when you look at their actions instead of listening to their words.

[DeistPaladin]

You must need to be really faithful to be an american conservative of the republican type.

Not so much faithful as deluded and able to intellectually turn on a dime as directed by your leaders, sometimes completely contradicting everything you argued passionately for last year, last month, or even yesterday.

Did you ever read George Orwell's "1984"?

I remember one scene from the book where "Oceana" (the nation of the protagonist) changed sides in a war, from fighting Eurasia to fighting East Asia. All the war propaganda posters were taken down and replaced with ones on the war against East Asia. A man was described giving a speech on the treachery of Eurasia and, mid-speech, suddenly changed to condemning the treachery of East Asia and praising our new ally, Eurasia. When it was done, Oceana had ALWAYS been at war with East Asia. There was never a time when East Asia was Oceana's ally against Eurasia. The past had been erased and re-written. Everyone seemed to quietly go along with the new narrative.

I remember my reaction reading it and thinking it was so farcical. There's simply no way anyone would really act that way. It was, I assumed, satire to drive home a point of the power of propaganda and its use in dictatorships.

For the last 20 years, I've seen this exact behavior among my fellow Americans who remain in the GOP despite how it has become a madhouse. Consider just a few examples:

1. How we treat our president.
During the Clinton administration, the standard on scandals was "even the appearance of impropriety" which usually meant any crackpot conspiracy theory was enough to call for endless outrage and justify a long line of congressional investigations to get to the bottom of what always turned out to be nothing. The fact that we were at war in Bosnia was of no concern because "we owe it to our troops to maintain the integrity of our government."

Then W Bush comes into office and everything changes. Now the standard is "questioning the president during a time of war is treason". Questioning the president was disloyalty. Accusing the president of lying us into a war was dismissed as "shrill". Impeachment wasn't even discussed. We suddenly owed our president "deference" even when no respect was earned (and it surely wasn't with W Bush).

Then Obama comes into the White House and without missing a beat, we're back to "even the appearance of impropriety", whether we're at war or no.

2. Tax cuts for the wealthy
You'd think after 8 years of getting everything they demanded, the GOP's policies would be completely discredited given the total disaster we endured at the end of the W Bush administration. Yet here we are, still debating tax cuts and deregulation as the means to stimulate the economy, as if these things hadn't been tried and proven to fail.

3. Deficits
The GOP runs up huge debt under Reagan and HW Bush without a care. After all, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter".

Then Clinton comes into office and it's "OMG! Where did this debt come from? Quick, slash and burn everything." And, under pressure from the GOP, Clinton abandoned his campaign promises and did it and we were on track to paying down the debt.

Then W Bush runs against the surplus, "that's not the government's money" and pledges to give it all away in tax cuts. Then W Bush runs up huge deficits again and we're back to "deficits don't matter".

The Obama comes into office and we're back to "OMG! Where did all this debt come from? Quick, slash and burn everything."

4. Iraq
Cheney gets on the air on Meet the Press and boasts how we're pulling our troops out of Iraq according to a treaty signed with the new regime. Iraq has been a success story and don't we liberals feel silly for ever doubting it could be done.

Then the castle of sand the GOP built collapses and Obama is blamed for pulling out the troops and declaring victory too soon, showing weakness in our over-hasty pullout.

The list just goes on and on. Do these people even listen to themselves or have any ability to remember what happened more than a year ago?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I think that is a case by case thing. If the kid is in their mid to late teens but not 18, the kid can be asked by the doctor and be considered old enough. But personally I think that is bullshit because they most likely have been indoctrinated since they were toddlers.

But most definitely you CANNOT deny medical treatment to kids not old enough to make their own decisions. Parents have been arrested and convicted of child endangerment and neglect and in some cases manslaughter or murder. The younger a kid is the less religion can be used as an excuse to deny treatment.

Looked this up:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP3/
American Academy of Pediatrics

ABSTRACT. Parents sometimes deny their children the benefits of medical care because of religious beliefs. In some jurisdictions, exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws restrict government action to protect children or seek legal redress when the alleged abuse or neglect has occurred in the name of religion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that all children deserve effective medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering or death. In addition the AAP advocates that all legal interventions apply equally whenever children are endangered or harmed, without exemptions based on parental religious beliefs. To these ends, the AAP calls for the end of religious exemption laws and supports additional efforts to educate the public about the medical needs of children.

[snip]

Through legislative activity at the federal and state levels, some religious groups have sought, and in many cases attained, government recognition in the form of approved payment for this "nonmedical therapy" and exemption from child abuse and neglect laws when children do not receive needed medical care.

[snip]

The AAP asserts that every child should have the opportunity to grow and develop free from preventable illness or injury. Children also have the right to appropriate medical evaluation when it is likely that a serious illness, injury, or other medical condition endangers their lives or threatens substantial harm or suffering. Under these circumstances, parents and other guardians have a responsibility to seek medical treatment, regardless of their religious beliefs and preferences. Unfortunately, certain groups have obtained exemptions from legal sanctions and state child abuse and neglect reporting laws based on the child's "treatment" by spiritual means, such as prayer. The overall effect has been to limit the government's ability to protect children from abuse or neglect.

So it seems to depend on jurisdictional laws and where religious groups have gained exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws regarding refusing the minors in their care from receiving medical treatment.

OK so I finally got around to reading the damned decision.
[snip]
4. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation who's shareholders all believe contraceptives are morally wrong for religious reasons.

It's my understanding that they are not opposed to all contraceptives, they are opposed to four specific kinds, (Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella), which Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacients - which they're not. But the majority opinion specifically states that because Hobby Lobby believes these contraceptive methods to be abortifacients then they have the right to refuse coverage of them on religious grounds because they oppose abortion:

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella ARE NOT abortifacients. The court's decision is based on what Hobby Lobby believes them to be, not on what they actually are. This is a dangerous precedent.

It's a basic self-help situation. If the women employees feel that they are getting the short end then they should quit to show their displeasure.

---

Yeah, because jobs are so easy to find that women can just throw them away.

Slaves had jobs and a lot of them lost their jobs when they gained freedom. But I don't recall any of them wanting to be slaves again so that they would have some work to do everyday from sun-up to sun-down.

If the issue is important the women employees will quit. If they don't then they shouldn't whine about. Of course if they had any sense they would stop voting for the Repubs but, then again, they are dumber than a box of rocks and vote against their own best interests.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just because someone is willing to endure inequity, does not mean that it is okay, or that it shouldn't be pointed out -as- inequity.