The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Critical Thinker]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LOL. One party feeds the 1% and the other party feeds the 99%. Which is the more logical for government?

Actually, 50% feeds the one party/government, said party/government feeds the other 50%, and the other party gets called misogynistic bigoted homophobic sexist racists while criticizing the process.

[Critical Thinker]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

To the poster that just called me a "huge ****ing moron" in the reputation comments:

It's time for you to raise your maturity level.



That is all.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm waiting for a woman to sue their employer over covering Viagra but not birth control.

I actually think Viagra shouldn't be covered. It's a borderline recreational drug.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Absolutely. Just look at all the Help Wanted ads in the newspaper every Sunday.

What's a newspaper?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

All 95 glorious pages, for those so inclined. The intelligent parts begin 60 pages in.

I'm about 50 pages into the opinion and I almost want to print it out and start highlighting the different types of logical fallacies with different colored highlighters.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

True, but this case never would have happened if the government had not included abortificants on their list of approved contraception drugs.

From a medical standpoint, I think it is very difficult, if not arbitrary to determine which hormonal contraception is an abortifacient. The uterus is the best abortifacient around, with 25-50 percent of conceived "human beings" being flushed down due to poor implantation. (I put it in "" to designate controversy, but I am not trying to take a stance on that point in this post). With a series of menstruations, any sexually active, fertile woman (let's say happily married, heterosexual and monogamous) is likely to have several "aborted conceptions" without even knowing. A woman's uterus is a very dangerous, unforgiving place statistically speaking.

Another note...many, many normally perscribed drugs are, in fact, great abortifacients. From acne medication to anti-epilepsy drugs. Can hobby lobby determine not to cover these medications because they will harm a fetus? Medical professionals warn, strongly, when any of these medications are given to not get pregnant but things happen. In fact, this is a very good reason to put someone on an IUD or other "fool proof" contraception, so they can take their necessary medication without worrying about harming a fetus. It is dangerous giving a person insurance to cover their anti-epilepsy medication but deny them coverage to avoid damaging a potential fetus.

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby objects to Plan B and both hormonal and copper IUDs, but not the majority of "contraception pills." I have no idea why they would think hormonal IUDs are any different than hormonal contraception pills when it comes to implantation. Both, in theory, are supposed to prevent ovulation. That means there is nothing to implant. The mechanism of action of a copper IUD is not perfectly understood but it is primarily thought to act through inhibition of sperm. I find it concerning when religious beliefs that seem to have no solid knowledge of what they oppose pick and choose arbitrarily.

If anything, most literature I have read have found (through population studies, mind you) that those individuals who have the highest rate of IUD implantation have the lowest abortion rates. I, personally, love IUDs. They are low risk, very easy to use and work in a wide population. I would gladly (if I were an OB/GYN) spend a day a week volunteering to place IUDs in any women of reproduction age who would like one.

Some-not many. Some would object to birth control if it's being used to undertake an unhealthy lifestyle. Other would applaud it.

Do you have anything to back-up the notion that cheap access to birth control leads to an unhealthier lifestyle compared to those without access?

[Slap Shot]

From a medical standpoint, I think it is very difficult, if not arbitrary to determine which hormonal contraception is an abortifacient. The uterus is the best abortifacient around, with 25-50 percent of conceived "human beings" being flushed down due to poor implantation. (I put it in "" to designate controversy, but I am not trying to take a stance on that point in this post). With a series of menstruations, any sexually active, fertile woman (let's say happily married, heterosexual and monogamous) is likely to have several "aborted conceptions" without even knowing. A woman's uterus is a very dangerous, unforgiving place statistically speaking.

Another note...many, many normally perscribed drugs are, in fact, great abortifacients. From acne medication to anti-epilepsy drugs. Can hobby lobby determine not to cover these medications because they will harm a fetus? Medical professionals warn, strongly, when any of these medications are given to not get pregnant but things happen. In fact, this is a very good reason to put someone on an IUD or other "fool proof" contraception, so they can take their necessary medication without worrying about harming a fetus. It is dangerous giving a person insurance to cover their anti-epilepsy medication but deny them coverage to avoid damaging a potential fetus.

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby objects to Plan B and both hormonal and copper IUDs, but not the majority of "contraception pills." I have no idea why they would think hormonal IUDs are any different than hormonal contraception pills when it comes to implantation. Both, in theory, are supposed to prevent ovulation. That means there is nothing to implant. The mechanism of action of a copper IUD is not perfectly understood but it is primarily thought to act through inhibition of sperm. I find it concerning when religious beliefs that seem to have no solid knowledge of what they oppose pick and choose arbitrarily.

If anything, most literature I have read have found (through population studies, mind you) that those individuals who have the highest rate of IUD implantation have the lowest abortion rates. I, personally, love IUDs. They are low risk, very easy to use and work in a wide population. I would gladly (if I were an OB/GYN) spend a day a week volunteering to place IUDs in any women of reproduction age who would like one.



Do you have anything to back-up the notion that cheap access to birth control leads to an unhealthier lifestyle compared to those without access?

Stop using science and facts you tree-hugging libt@rd.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Stop using science and facts you tree-hugging libt@rd.

What I do with a tree in the privacy of my own home is between me and the flying spaghetti monster.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Nice try, gramps. You got called out for spewing malarkey and know it.

Why don't you go find some more Chicago gun stories and leave the legal arguments to people who can, I don't know, actually read the law.

Attention everyone, Louis Nizer wants us all to remember that he's a lawyer. And that we ought never to forget it. And more importantly, that his opinion on these matters counts. However, you'd imagine someone as proud of his Jay Community College law degree and his acute powers of observation as he is would have noticed that my initial post was of a more general nature and not referring specifically to today's holdings. I've pointed this out to him twice now to no effect. He claims to be able to make legal arguments, yet is unable to grasp the simple distinction I've made. I have my doubts.

I guess he's cranky because this one didn't go the way he would have wanted. He's evidently quite comfortable forcing people of faith to go against their principles. As a lawyer, he's certainly aware of what having no principles means.

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It's not all good on the cell phone ruling: http://m.newburyportnews.com/TDNN/db...tguid=HjP1FkO4

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

What I do with a tree in the privacy of my own home is between me and the flying spaghetti monster.

And the NSA.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I would gladly spend a day a week volunteering to place IUDs in any women of reproduction age who would like one.

Are such opportunities available?

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

It's not all good on the cell phone ruling: http://m.newburyportnews.com/TDNN/db...tguid=HjP1FkO4

Think of all the people in possession of child pornography that could be caught if only police were allowed to randomly bust down peoples' doors in the middle of the night. Why won't we just think of the children?!

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LOL. One party feeds the 1% and the other party feeds the 99%. Which is the more logical for government?

if you include the true value of fringe benefits, most government employees are closer to the 1% than the 99%.......

Let's try this instead:

One party feeds trial lawyers, "green" companies, and Wall Street bankers (who have benefited more than any other group the past six years...)

One party feeds military contractors and large corporations.

Neither party gives a flying f&ck about the 99% except when they trot out their hypocritical pieties every election cycle.

We have two different parties each engaged in their own form of corporate welfare.


What is so bizarre is how you turn this into "sides" and imagine somehow you are on one "side" in glorious defense against the scurrilous other "side." Neither party cares about you in the slightest.



Some of us don't trust government at all, no matter which party runs it. That seems beyond the comprehension of most left-wing folks today. You seem to think that if we don't trust government, we somehow "must" support Republicans. Why would we do that? They can't be trusted either.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

if you include the true value of fringe benefits, most government employees are closer to the 1% than the 99%.......

Let's try this instead:

One party feeds trial lawyers, "green" companies, and Wall Street bankers (who have benefited more than any other group the past six years...)

One party feeds military contractors and large corporations.

Neither party gives a flying f&ck about the 99% except when they trot out their hypocritical pieties every election cycle.

We have two different parties each engaged in their own form of corporate welfare.


What is so bizarre is how you turn this into "sides" and imagine somehow you are on one "side" in glorious defense against the scurrilous other "side." Neither party cares about you in the slightest.



Some of us don't trust government at all, no matter which party runs it. That seems beyond the comprehension of most left-wing folks today. You seem to think that if we don't trust government, we somehow "must" support Republicans. Why would we do that? They can't be trusted either.

This would have more meaning if you didn't reflexively display your man-love of George W Bush every chance you get!