The Un-Truthers

[DKW 86 7,726]

I have been shocked to the core by the Hobby Lobby Case. I have read more lies about it than i ever ever imagined possible, even for the most most partisan hackery out there.

http://www.nationalr...s-deroy-murdock

Quote

The Left is foaming at the mouth over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision this morning.

“This is going to turn the dial back,” Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultzwarned on MSNBC. The Democratic party’s national chairwoman added: “Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make health care decisions for her.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision unfortunately jeopardizes basic healthcare coverage and access to contraception for a countless number of women,”said Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Consequently, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said that his party now must “fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage.”

This is not just garbage. It’s an entire landfill on stilts.

[DKW 86 7,726]

http://time.com/2940888/twitter-supreme-court-hobby-lobby/

Boxer: Is #SCOTUS living in the 19th or 21st century? My colleagues & I are already working to remedy this injustice

http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/063014.cfm …

Pelosi: SCOTUS took an outrageous step against women's rights, setting a dangerous precedent that permits corporations to choose which laws to obey.

Planned Parenthood: Make no mistake: Today, once again, the Supreme Court ruled against American women. #notmybossbusiness

Ali Taylor: If your boss can't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why can they tell you how to spend your benefits? #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

[DKW 86 7,726]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/01/the-left-cant-stop-lying-about-the-hobby-lobby-decision-n1857728

The Left Can't Stop Distorting the Hobby Lobby Decision

Leave it to Harry Reid to make the cheapest argument imaginable, which naturally fails to mention that a key related ruling against the overreaching mandate at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was handed down by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, an African American woman. It's time that our white male Senate Majority Leader stop telling black woman jurists how to do their jobs. And I, for one, "can't believe we live in a world" in which a privileged white woman can shamelessly traffic in an entirely unsupportable "ethnicity" claim throughout her career, drop the pretense once she's reached the pinnacle of her profession, and still get elected to the United States Senate as an anti-privilege, populist liberal. Nobody is deciding "what happens to women," nor is "access to basic care" being "denied." Women managed to obtain and use birth control without incident for decades leading up to the 2012 regulation issuance, and they will continue to do so. We've returned to the pre-2012 status quo in which (a) birth control is legal, accessible and affordable, and ( a relatively small handful of religious employers are not coerced by government to pay for something that violates their beliefs. The Hobby Lobby decision upholds the principle of keeping the government (and your boss) out of your bedroom. "Contraception is none of my boss' business!" and "my boss must pay for my contraception!" are incompatible.

[channonc 466]

Sorry David, but I see this completely differently, especially with regard to IUDs. Quite frankly, I had a discussion with my OBGYN and there are many pre and post menopausal women who use these devices as part of their hormone replacement therapy because it is easier than dealing with pills. Additionally IUDs have a much lower hormone level than traditional birth control pills which helps those who are sensitive to hormones at high doses.

With regard to emergency contraception, understand that they will not get rid of an established pregnancy, but rather prevent fertilized eggs. Very different from abortion. So as a woman, I do see this a potential slippery slope issue and it does concern me.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Sorry David, but I see this completely differently, especially with regard to IUDs. Quite frankly, I had a discussion with my OBGYN and there are many pre and post menopausal women who use these devices as part of their hormone replacement therapy because it is easier than dealing with pills. Additionally IUDs have a much lower hormone level than traditional birth control pills which helps those who are sensitive to hormones at high doses.

With regard to emergency contraception, understand that they will not get rid of an established pregnancy, but rather prevent fertilized eggs. Very different from abortion. So as a woman, I do see this a potential slippery slope issue and it does concern me.

I think IUDs are important to OBGYN care but I also see the term "easier" in your statement and therefore feel compelled to discuss this point. While I'm a male (born this way and have no choice in that other than expensive surgery and a host of medications that frankly won't change who I am ) I see the importance of the argument for women, but just like the difference in transportation you have a choice in some cases. You can drive the compact that gets you to and from with little creature comfort (pills), or you can get the pricier sedan with leather, tilt, cruise, wifi (IUD)...you get my point.

It's not that simple, but the point is noted.

[channonc 466]

Sorry David, but I see this completely differently, especially with regard to IUDs. Quite frankly, I had a discussion with my OBGYN and there are many pre and post menopausal women who use these devices as part of their hormone replacement therapy because it is easier than dealing with pills. Additionally IUDs have a much lower hormone level than traditional birth control pills which helps those who are sensitive to hormones at high doses.

With regard to emergency contraception, understand that they will not get rid of an established pregnancy, but rather prevent fertilized eggs. Very different from abortion. So as a woman, I do see this a potential slippery slope issue and it does concern me.

I think IUDs are important to OBGYN care but I also see the term "easier" in your statement and therefore feel compelled to discuss this point. While I'm a male (born this way and have no choice in that other than expensive surgery and a host of medications that frankly won't change who I am ) I see the importance of the argument for women, but just like the difference in transportation you have a choice in some cases. You can drive the compact that gets you to and from with little creature comfort (pills), or you can get the pricier sedan with leather, tilt, cruise, wifi (IUD)...you get my point.

It's not that simple, but the point is noted.

But some women can't handle the less expensive "coupe".

[DKW 86 7,726]

From what i have read the only effected IUD is one that comes with Hormones imbedded.

There are patches etc. HL has been and will continue to support 16 different methods of birth control, they have only chosen to not support 4 that they feel act as Abortifacients.

Women can still purchase whatever they want. They are not denied anything at all. This is a narrow decision. It does not apply to ALL Corporations, nor all Contraception.

channonc, got a question for you.

So far the ACA has 1300+ Organizations and their employees that are completely exempt from the ACA. How is that not the worse case?

I do not hear anyone objecting to the 1300+ Exemptions at all. Most include Unions, McDonald's, Walmart, etc.

Why is no one on the Left upset about them?

I suspect two things.

1) HL is an openly religious company. Heck they play Christian Music in the stores and Support ORU. (I do not agree with many of their ideals at all. But i let it go.)

The Left just hates they lost to them.

2) The Midterms are not looking good for the Dems. Is it possible that this is just a smoke screen to get their base to turnout?

[Weegle777 78]

I believe the religious aspect plays a huge role in their angst as well.

[channonc 466]

From what i have read the only effected IUD is one that comes with Hormone imbedded.

There are patches etc. HL has been and will continue to support 16 different methods, they have only chosen to not support 4 that they feel act as Abortifacients.

Women can still purchase whatever they want. They are not denied anything at all. This is a narrow decision. it does not apply to ALL Corporations.

channonc, got a question for you.

So far the ACA has 1300+ Organizations and their employees that are completely exempt from the ACA. How is that not the worse case?

I do not hear anyone objecting to the 1300+ Exemptions at all. Most include Unions, McDonald's, Walmart, etc.

Why is no one on the Left upset about them?

In suspect two things.

1) HL is an openly religious company. Heck they play Christian Music in the stores and Support ORU. I do not agree with many of their ideals at all. But i let it go.

2) The Midterms are not looking good for the Dems. Is it possible that this is just a smoke screen to get their base to turnout?

First, all IUDs are affected. And 16 methods boil down to different pill formulations for most of those 16. Additionally, just because one group feels these 4 methods are equal to abortion doesn't make it so. Emergency contraception does not disrupt an established pregnancy. IUDs prevent fertilization (just like BC pills), there is no evidence that they work beyond fertilization. In fact, plan b prevents ovulation, as does BC pills, as does hormonal IUDs. Copper IUDs essentially kills sperm (no different than a spermicide).

I'm not happy about ACA exemptions at all. But that's not the point here.

[DKW 86 7,726]

From what i have read the only effected IUD is one that comes with Hormone imbedded.

There are patches etc. HL has been and will continue to support 16 different methods, they have only chosen to not support 4 that they feel act as Abortifacients.

Women can still purchase whatever they want. They are not denied anything at all. This is a narrow decision. it does not apply to ALL Corporations.

channonc, got a question for you.

So far the ACA has 1300+ Organizations and their employees that are completely exempt from the ACA. How is that not the worse case?

I do not hear anyone objecting to the 1300+ Exemptions at all. Most include Unions, McDonald's, Walmart, etc.

Why is no one on the Left upset about them?

In suspect two things.

1) HL is an openly religious company. Heck they play Christian Music in the stores and Support ORU. I do not agree with many of their ideals at all. But i let it go.

2) The Midterms are not looking good for the Dems. Is it possible that this is just a smoke screen to get their base to turnout?

First, all IUDs are affected. And 16 methods boil down to different pill formulations for most of those 16. Additionally, just because one group feels these 4 methods are equal to abortion doesn't make it so. Emergency contraception does not disrupt an established pregnancy. IUDs prevent fertilization (just like BC pills), there is no evidence that they work beyond fertilization. In fact, plan b prevents ovulation, as does BC pills, as does hormonal IUDs. Copper IUDs essentially kills sperm (no different than a spermicide).

I'm not happy about ACA exemptions at all. But that's not the point here.

Yes it is. If it politically benefits you, you are totally fine with it. Are those women not being denied total BC care? Why yes they are. But no one on the Left is unhappy about it.

Strange things in deed, most peculiar....

[TheBlueVue 177]

When did it become an option for the President or anyone else to discredit a Supreme Court decision. Their decisions, historically, have been final. Just because someone disagrees with their judgement doesn't mean there is an available option to figure out an administrative way to get around it. They have to go through the channels of appealing the decision but I am not surprised though, this President has always seen the Constitution as an impediment and not the basis of the rule of law.

I saw Josh Earnest, the new Press Secretary for Obama say, "the Constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with this decision". OK, so frickin what? Get an appeal started and reverse it the way the law provides but not by simply circumventing it with an executive order.

[cooltigger21 0]

Why be shocked? That reaction and the lies were as predictable as sunrise.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

If not for a completely wrong decision by the SCOTUS, we would not be having this conversation. If you don't like or agree with the decision or HL, don't work there and don't shop there.

[TheBlueVue 177]

If not for a completely wrong decision by the SCOTUS, we would not be having this conversation. If you don't like or agree with the decision or HL, don't work there and don't shop there.

"completely wrong" huh? HL is providing 16 out 20 birth control drugs. NONE of them are expensive. Women can STILL get them but they'll have to buy them. In the end, the basis of this decision is that HL doesn't have to pay for their employees abortifacia drugs. This is not a war on women but the owners of that company happen to believe life begins at conception as part of their religion The court simply ruled they have a right to believe that and the govt cannot force them to do something that goes totally against to what they believe by making them pay for drugs that do not prevent pregnancy but rather abort pregnancy. Freedom of religion is protected by the 1st amendment. This is a win for the constitution.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

[quietfan 233]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

Or that all the conservatives that thought the original Obamacare ruling was BS now think SCOTUS did something right...

[Weegle777 78]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

Or that all the conservatives that thought the original Obamacare ruling was BS now think SCOTUS did something right...

Blind squirrel.....

[TheBlueVue 177]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

OH! Well I agree with that perspective completely

[TheBlueVue 177]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

Or that all the conservatives that thought the original Obamacare ruling was BS now think SCOTUS did something right...

I thought that ruling it a tax was rife with irony because Obama's legal team had argued with republicans for over a year claiming it was not a tax.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Sorry David, but I see this completely differently, especially with regard to IUDs. Quite frankly, I had a discussion with my OBGYN and there are many pre and post menopausal women who use these devices as part of their hormone replacement therapy because it is easier than dealing with pills. Additionally IUDs have a much lower hormone level than traditional birth control pills which helps those who are sensitive to hormones at high doses.

With regard to emergency contraception, understand that they will not get rid of an established pregnancy, but rather prevent fertilized eggs. Very different from abortion. So as a woman, I do see this a potential slippery slope issue and it does concern me.

I think IUDs are important to OBGYN care but I also see the term "easier" in your statement and therefore feel compelled to discuss this point. While I'm a male (born this way and have no choice in that other than expensive surgery and a host of medications that frankly won't change who I am :)/> ) I see the importance of the argument for women, but just like the difference in transportation you have a choice in some cases. You can drive the compact that gets you to and from with little creature comfort (pills), or you can get the pricier sedan with leather, tilt, cruise, wifi (IUD)...you get my point.

It's not that simple, but the point is noted.

But some women can't handle the less expensive "coupe".

Maybe some research and development is needed to provide a better suited alternative. What did women do 300 years ago? I'm not advocating this at all, just posing the realistic view that options are available. Depo shots for many work well.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Blue.......I can't speak for jj but I think what he is saying is that if SCOTUS hadn't made the wrong decision on Obamacare in the first place, we wouldn't be having the current conversation concerning the HL case. In any event, it is funny that all the liberals who thought the Obamacare ruling was wonderful now think SCOTUS is bunch of jerks.

PT, that is the funny part of the whole discussion. SC, heroes months ago are pariahs now. Politics makes us all fickle i guess.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I for one am glad that the USSC issued a decree that made it the law of the land that women shall remain in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Apparently, that's what happened via the HL ruling, isn't it?

Must be. It's gonna be a GREAT 4th of July weekend!!

[DKW 86 7,726]

I for one am glad that the USSC issued a decree that made it the law of the land that women shall remain in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Apparently, that's what happened via the HL ruling, isn't it?

Must be. It's gonna be a GREAT 4th of July weekend!!

You know i have really enjoyed the completely hysterical over-reaction by the Left.

Poor old Patricia Ireland...How embarrassed she must feel...if she could.

Just want you all to know:

Obama is a natural citizen.

The completely inept Bush43 Admin did not fake 9-11.

Gay Marriage wont destroy the Institution any more than the hetero fools who are getting divorced a 100 times are doing now.

And that the entire world did not suddenly decide to was free to kill all American Women because SCOTUS decided that closely/privately held companies with overtly strong religious leanings can object to supplying things that would break their religious believes.

You know, i was reading this morning where the First Amendment gives the Right to Free Speech AND Freedom of Religion. You cant separate one from the other.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law under Clinton and voted into being with almost 100% Support in both houses, really made this a simple decision.

http://www.slate.com...n_ginsburg.html

Here are the two key issues:

First, is a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby a “person” within the meaning of RFRA, which extends its protections to “persons” and doesn’t mention for-profit corporations? Alito says yes. Corporations are presumptively treated as persons under the law, and even the feds agree that RFRA protects noncommercial corporations like churches. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent, says that corporations don’t “exercise” religion. Alito makes the better argument. Once Ginsburg says that “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities,” she gives away the game. A church is an artificial legal entity. Interpreting “person” to encompass corporations but not for-profit corporations doesn’t pass muster. And note that some nonprofit corporations do make money, just like for-profit corporations, and can be commercial in nature (thus, there are both for-profit and nonprofit hospitals that do essentially the same thing—provide care in return for money). The essential difference is a tiny one: The stakeholders in a nonprofit must take their compensation in a form that does not vary with the firm’s profits. It’s hard to imagine that Congress wanted the coverage of RFRA to turn on this distinction.

That is a legal opinion from Slate.com. If the definition of PERSON is extended to an artificial legal entity, a church, and every adult reading this knows it does and did when the act was written, then it has to be be extended to every artificial legal entity, non-profit and for-profit.