The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

One of the more salient features of reality is it exists whether people want to believe it or not.

The Gilded Age Court made decisions eerily similar to the Roberts Court. Poor people and racial minorities got screwed. (Women were completely screwed in the 19th century no matter what, so the Court can't be blamed for that.) The membership changes to the Court eventually resulted in every one of these decisions being significantly modified or vacated completely. It just took the Court about 20 years to catch up with the rest of America.

That's where we are right now -- the Court is operating under social and economic public debates fought in the 90s -- the average year of appointment for the justices is 1998. The rest of us left that as a dead letter long ago, but it will take another decade or so (assuming the parties continue their trajectories) before the Court catches up to where we are now.

The Court is always about 20 years behind, because one third of the country is always about 60 years behind.

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

I don't think it's about their age. Oliver Wendell Holmes was brilliant and perceptive when he was 85, and Clarence Thomas was a reactionary moron when he was 45. And while it's not great 75% of the Senate wears Depends, the House is much younger and yet those guys are far stupider and more Neanderthal.

It's the quality of the people in the office, not their mileage. We are emerging from a period (1980-2005) when politics was dominated by the very worst people in the country. As long as we duck Hillary, that period is over.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

As long as we duck Hillary, that period is over.

I have a few more Rs and Ds I'd put on that "need to duck" list.

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The corollary problem is that "leadership" in both the House and Senate (majority and minority) is behind* and beholden not to their constituencies but their donors**.

*behind: euphemism for old, but you can't say that as you risk an age discrimination suit
**and that applies to both political parties

I'm impressed when anyone can use the words Senate, House and Leadership in the same sentence. Quotation marks are our friends.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The ruling merely said that (b) was not satisfied in the mandate, there are other, less-intrusive ways to implement the mandate other than by compelling the owners of the closely-held company to pay for abortifacients.

The problem I have, from a medical standpoint, is that IUDs are not used as abortifacients. I would love to hear one example where they were, by any OB/GYN, because it would fly in the face of practice guidelines (and there are much, much better medications for that). The decreased ability of implantation is a hypothesis (basically because we are not sure how a copper IUD works as well as it does) that cannot ethically be tested and is a moot point as a properly working IUD prevents ovulation therefore there is nothing to implant.

I am no legal expert, but I am worried that this allows companies, not medical professionals or the science behind practice, to determine what medication does what. To put what I stated in a previous post another way, methotrexate is, in fact, an abortifacient. It is used as such in combination with misoprostol to treat ectopic pregnancy. It is also used in cancer and autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. Can a company, based on religious grounds, deny coverage for a cancer/immune/ectopic therapy drug because it is also an abortifacient? Even if it is not used as such?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Quotation marks are our friends.

Indeed, and glad you noticed them.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The problem I have, from a medical standpoint, ...

None of those details mattered in the ruling.

The only issue that was decided was an extremely narrow and technical one: is forcing owners of closely-held businesses to pay for something against their beliefs the least-intrusive way of accomplishing that end? and the answer was "no," there are other, less intrusive methods available.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

None of those details mattered in the ruling.

So opposing something as an abortifacient that is not one does not matter? I understand this is a narrow ruling (which I am thankful for) but does it not allow a company to determine what a medication's mechanism of action is?

[unofan]

So opposing something as an abortifacient that is not one does not matter? I understand this is a narrow ruling (which I am thankful for) but does it not allow a company to determine what a medication's mechanism of action is?

The court said it doesn't matter. Logically, that makes no sense because they're essentially saying if religion x believes 1+1=3 because a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the court will not question the validity of the belief, only whether it is sincerely held. But that's what they did.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So opposing something as an abortifacient that is not one does not matter? I understand this is a narrow ruling (which I am thankful for) but does it not allow a company to determine what a medication's mechanism of action is?

Absolutley it does. ANY Contraception that they deem against their religion they can opt of paying for. Doesn't matter what it is.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The court said it doesn't matter. Logically, that makes no sense because they're essentially saying if religion x believes 1+1=3 because a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the court will not question the validity of the belief, only whether it is sincerely held. But that's what they did.

Interesting. Sad, but interesting. I do not read enough about law to understand the scope and limitations in a case like this.

Absolutley it does. ANY Contraception that they deem against their religion they can opt of paying for. Doesn't matter what it is.

I was trying to argue more on Hobby Lobby's turf since I have seen it thrown around a lot that they still cover "16 out of the 20" contraceptive measures mandated by the ACA, therefore they do not oppose contraception. They opposed the ones that they deemed were abortifacients (2 types of plan B essentially and 2 IUDs), even though that is completely inconsistent.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Interesting. Sad, but interesting. I do not read enough about law to understand the scope and limitations in a case like this.



I was trying to argue more on Hobby Lobby's turf since I have seen it thrown around a lot that they still cover "16 out of the 20" contraceptive measures mandated by the ACA, therefore they do not oppose contraception. They opposed the ones that they deemed were abortifacients (2 types of plan B essentially and 2 IUDs), even though that is completely inconsistent.

They bragged about the coverage that they did approve so they could get some love in the media. They (like most conservatives) have no basis in science for anything that they decide.

[Priceless]

Absolutley it does. ANY Contraception that they deem against their religion they can opt of paying for. Doesn't matter what it is.

My religion says Viagra is an abortifacient. So are xrays, CT scans and MRIs. In fact, all of medicine is just a cover for abortion. Therefore I don't have to provide any health coverage at all.

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The problem I have, from a medical standpoint, is that IUDs are not used as abortifacients. I would love to hear one example where they were, by any OB/GYN, because it would fly in the face of practice guidelines (and there are much, much better medications for that). The decreased ability of implantation is a hypothesis (basically because we are not sure how a copper IUD works as well as it does) that cannot ethically be tested and is a moot point as a properly working IUD prevents ovulation therefore there is nothing to implant.

I am no legal expert, but I am worried that this allows companies, not medical professionals or the science behind practice, to determine what medication does what. To put what I stated in a previous post another way, methotrexate is, in fact, an abortifacient. It is used as such in combination with misoprostol to treat ectopic pregnancy. It is also used in cancer and autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. Can a company, based on religious grounds, deny coverage for a cancer/immune/ectopic therapy drug because it is also an abortifacient? Even if it is not used as such?

I think you mean "fertilization" here. Otherwise you are correct. The previous held belief that IUDs inhibit implantation has not been totally disproven but seems to be the least likely mechanism of action.

Your concern about off label use other agents being denied is a valid one. The fact that the court fails to distinguish between contrceptives and abortifacients shows the lack of understand of the science involved.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think you mean "fertilization" here.

You are correct, thanks! Get all caught up on terms and then I misuse one