Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[donquixote99]

We are at the crux of it.

Religious freedom is you can believe what you want.

Religious tolerance means you can't be persecuted for your beliefs.

Neither means that you can use your personal religion to evade legal duties to others. That is imposing your religion on others.

The duty in this case is to include the disputed medical services in one's health plan. This is legitimate regulation based on a vital public interest in safeguarding the rights and health of consumers in a highly complex corporate health care system.

The result of the Supreme Court ruling is that Hobby Lobby gets in effect to send a clergyman of their choosing into the examination room with a woman and her doctor, with a veto on procedures, regardless of the woman's religious beliefs. This is not religious freedom, it is religious imposition. And it is made possible by state power handed to the religionists by the Supreme Court, in an historically bad decision.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Well, that's one way of saying he's full of shit.

True dat.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

We are at the crux of it.

Religious freedom is you can believe what you want.

Religious tolerance means you can't be persecuted for your beliefs.

Neither means that you can use your personal religion to evade legal duties to others. That is imposing your religion on others.

The duty in this case is to include the disputed medical services in one's health plan. This is legitimate regulation based on a vital public interest in safeguarding the rights and health of consumers in a highly complex corporate health care system.

The result of the Supreme Court ruling is that Hobby Lobby gets in effect to send a clergyman of their choosing into the examination room with a woman and her doctor, with a veto on procedures, regardless of the woman's religious beliefs. This is not religious freedom, it is religious imposition. And it is made possible by state power handed to the religionists by the Supreme Court, in an historically bad decision.

And there you have it.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

No. Emergency contraception works before pregnancy begins. It will not work if a woman is already pregnant. Abortion takes place after a fertilized egg has attached to the uterus. The abortion pill (Mifeprex, also called RU-486) makes the uterus force out the egg, ending the pregnancy.

Take your claims of hypocrisy and reclassify them under religious intolerance. It would be far more accurate.

If that's the case then why do the Greens oppose providing copper wire IUD's in their coverage package? The copper wire IUD, and any other IUD's do not act to force a fertilized egg from it's attachment to the uterus. IUD's prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. So it's not an abortifacient. So why do the Green's object to it?

I'll tell you why. Because they object to any emergency contraception whether it constitutes, by the language you chose to put forth here, the act of dislodging a fertilized egg from the uterus or not. Whether it causes an abortion or not.

Religious intolerance my ass. Convenient hypocrisy that flies in the face of the medical description you provide and which supports religious beliefs being forced on others is what it is.

[bobabode]

I wonder if Whell can explain away the fact that the Green family has investments in the company that manufactures IUDs?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The result of the Supreme Court ruling is that Hobby Lobby gets in effect to send a clergyman of their choosing into the examination room with a woman and her doctor, with a veto on procedures, regardless of the woman's religious beliefs. This is not religious freedom, it is religious imposition. And it is made possible by state power handed to the religionists by the Supreme Court, in an historically bad decision.

It's not only religious imposition. Forcing a woman to accept the presence of a clergyman in the treatment office is a violation of the legal right to medical confidentiality. It's against the law without a consent for release of information from the patient allowing a third party into the treatment room or doctor's office. If their decision allows this intrusion, the SCOTUS is negating nation wide federal HIPPA laws and state medical confidentiality laws.

[finnbow]

I suppose it would be OK for a West Virginia Snake-Handling Pentacostal who owns a company to refuse to pay insurance for snake bite treatment at the emergency room. Actually, this analogy isn't all that far-fetched as they're both Pentacostals.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I wonder if Whell can explain away the fact that the Green family has investments in the company that manufactures IUDs?

He'll speak to it, but it won't involve an explanation, or a debate, or much of anything of substance.

[finnbow]

In an interesting twist (in my mind, anyway), the SCOTUS earlier found that the mandate under Obamacare was a tax. Now, they've as much as said you can pick which items of this tax you choose not to pay for. I guess I'll send a refund request to the IRS requesting a refund of my tax monies devoted to the Iraq War as I never supported it from the beginning.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

We are at the crux of it.

Religious freedom is you can believe what you want.

No, that's not all of it. Religious freedom is about what the government can / cannot do. Under the 1st Amendment, the government can't establish a religion, nor can it impede the free exercise of religion.

In this case, the court also used the 1993 Religious Freedom restoration act. That act holds that "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

So, using those two standards, the SCOTUS got it right. Period. You might not like it, but it is the law of the land.