What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
I'm sure that would excite you to no end.
Click to expand...

And the Christian Scientists. And the Jehovah Witnesses, etc. etc. etc. It's going to be a lot of fun. Cause the GOP WILL NEVER agree to extracting Health Insurance from employment. NEVER.

EDIT: Also, let's remember that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan includes investments in the companies that produce the very drugs etc. that they refuse to pay for.

So much hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This is a good day. . .a very good day. The union decision is far more important and may accelerate the decline into irrelevance of unions, which would be a very good thing. Union goonery and thuggery is an artifact of an earlier age (despite being on display for all to see a couple of years ago in Wisconsin). Public employee unions should be outlawed. In that, I'm in rare agreement with FDR.

That pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way of "progressives," who manage to hold conflicting points of view on the exercise of religion: you can do it, just don't do it in public or in a way that interferes with anybody anywhere (including making the most sensitive people on God's earth feel "offended."). I'm a doctor's kid and not pro life. Yet when was the election that redefined "women's health" as referring only to birth control? The Sandra Fluke syndrome, evidently.

The "progressives" have declared war on Chick fil A because their corporate big wigs don't have what they see as acceptable views on homosexuality. Despite the fact that I'm unaware of any allegation that the company has discriminated against any potential or current employee, customer or supplier on the basis of sexual orientation. That being the case, what's the BFD?
 
Last edited:
joecct said:
We've squandered trillions of dollars before. The War on Drugs? The War on Poverty?

Given how long the latter 2 "wars" have lasted, you think we would have wiped them off the planet.
Click to expand...

What's funny is the war on poverty was actually working until welfare queen entered the national lexicon in the early 80's. The we cut off our nose to spite our face because someone bought a lobster with food stamps at some point.
 
Old Pio said:
That pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way of "progressives,"
Click to expand...

Know how I know you didn't actually read the opinion or know what it says?

"Our decision...makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim."
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofan said:
Know how I know you didn't actually read the opinion or know what it says?

"Our decision...makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim."
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the justices, Bunky, I was referring to you. But you keep plugging away.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Old Pio said:
I wasn't referring to the justices, Bunky, I was referring to you. But you keep plugging away.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

ScoobyDoo said:
LOL. One party feeds the 1% and the other party feeds the 99%. Which is the more logical for government?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

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

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.

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

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?
 
WisconsinWildcard said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stop using science and facts you tree-hugging libt@rd.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top