http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-contraceptives-20171006-story.html This story has receive a lot of attention and false statements have been flying back and forth from both sides. The first false statement is that the women affected will lose their no cost reproductive insurance benefits and that's simply not true. There are already provisions to ensure continuation of the benefits for the women affected in compliance with the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby. https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ruling-hhs-announces-birth-control-workaround The exemption for religious based objections was based upon the federal government providing alternatives in providing the no cost reproductive health care benefits to the women and the Trump administration is going to have to do that just like the Obama Administration was forced by the Hobby Lobby decision to make those accommodations. Trump has failed to provide those provisions so far but he will. The Supreme Court will mandate those provisions if Trump fails to provide for them up front. We can also note that the Supreme Court decision on the for profit exemption was limited to closely held corporation where all of the stockholders objected to the benefit on religious ground. It's doubtful that the "expanded" exemption will meet that criteria. A single stockholder's objection negates the claim that the corporation (i.e. the stockholders) object to the mandate for the reproductive benefit. As usual the White House is living in denial of the law and the Constitution by ignorantly believing that the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion) negates the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Under the Law). That only exists in the delusional world of Donald Trump (apparently covered by Article XII of the Constitution).
Very misleading. Hobby Lobby was over certain types of contraception that result in abortion (the abortion pill, and contraceptives such as IUD's which they claim results in an abortion). There was no issue with other contraceptives such as condoms. The real subject is abortion, not contraception, not sex education, not medical care. I do not want a single penny of my tax money going directly or indirectly to support "abortion for convenience". Good for Trump.
Government should buy me condoms. Bunch of sexists giving women birth control but don't help men in that area. Edit: also a blow up doll. It is a great tool for preventing pregnancy and helps protect from STDs by offering a different release. Not releasing can cause prostate cancer.
An obvious failure to read the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby so I'll summarize the decision. The Supreme Court address the application of a religious exemption related to "for profit" enterprises ("not for profit" enterprises were already being granted the religious exemption). The Court granted that exemption for Hobby Lobby because it was a closely held corporation where the limited stockholders all held the same religious belief that some of the benefits provided for by the insurance violated their religious beliefs. The granting of the exemption was based upon the fact that the federal government could find another means by which the (female) employees could obtain the benefit, that they're entitled to under the law, from another source other than their employer. The rights of the (female) employees to the benefit is equal to the right of the employer to their religious belief and both must be accommodated under the Constitution. The provisions of the ACA (Obamacare) do not provide for abortion with the rare exceptions provided for under federal law. Plan B, for example, is not an abortion drug. It's a pregnancy preventative drug that prevents the woman from becoming pregnant by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. The very wealthy (top 1% of income households) are the primary source of funding for the ACA while the average Americans provide no funding whatsoever for the ACA. If a person opposes any tax dollars going to fund the benefits that will be denied by the employer claiming a religious exemption then they would logically oppose the religious exemption that allows the employer to not pay for the benefit and levies the responsibility on the federal government to fund the benefit. As noted the Trump administration will unquestionably face a lawsuit (the ACLU has already stated it's going to file a lawsuit) and the federal courts will block Trump's order based upon the Hobby Lobby decision if an alternative means of providing the benefit is not provided. The order will remain blocked through the appeals process and when it goes to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court will either not hear the case leaving the lower appeals court ruling intact (i.e. the federal government must provide the benefit) or it will hear the case and the Supreme Court will order the federal government to provide the benefit or strike down the executive order as simply being unconstitutional That's the facts like it or not. I would respectfully suggest that next time read the actual Supreme Court decisions before expressing uninformed opinion.
Men cannot become pregnant although the use of a condom is recommended for numerous reasons. At the end of your arms you'll find the means for avoiding impregnating women so you can live without condoms or a blow-up toy.
Maybe you should read the post before responding. I responded to the misleading claim that Hobby Lobby wanted to prevent women from contraception. Hobby Lobby's objection was not over contraception per se, it was over contraception that caused abortions such as the "morning after pill". The root of their concern was abortion, not contraception. Hobby Lobby did not object to paying for contraception, just certain types of contraception that resulted in an abortion.
Plan B does not cause an abortion. Plan B prevents pregnancy. The specifics of the objection based upon the religious belief are irrelevant because whatever is objected to that denies a benefit to the woman must be provided for by another means. The woman's right to the benefit is equal to the right to deny the benefit based upon a religious belief. So Trump can expand the religious exemption (possibly) but whatever benefit is excluded by the religious exemption must be provided for by the federal government based upon the Hobby Lobby decision. The grave mistake in the Hobby Lobby case was that Hobby Lobby received a lower premium rate because if the removal of a benefit when, in fact, the requirement for a unique insurance policy would have increased the cost of that policy due to the additional administrative costs associated with a unique insurance policy.
That's all legality and politics, and open to interpretation and spin and tap dancing. It has nothing to do with why Hobby Lobby had an issue with obamacare, and why they filed their lawsuit.
