Well done to the Supreme Court.

[Sava]

than, maybe you'll learn how to use the right one

[The Mad Monk]

Doubtful.

[Sava]

they're they're

don't frown

[MrFun]

Good thing that's not happening here, then.

You don't see how this ruling on Hobby Lobby and the "religious freedom" charade opens up a can of worms?

[Elok]

So . . . in order to save funds, they refused to cover just four of the twenty types of birth control (and not the most expensive or commonly-used types, either), then dragged it up to the SC? How exactly does the cost/benefit analysis work on that? How many damned IUDs and morning-after pills will they have to avoid paying for to defray their legal costs?

[DinoDoc]

So . . . in order to save funds, they refused to cover just four of the twenty types of birth control (and not the most expensive or commonly-used types, either), then dragged it up to the SC? How exactly does the cost/benefit analysis work on that? How many damned IUDs and morning-after pills will they have to avoid paying for to defray their legal costs?

It wasn't an economic decision. They refused to compromise their morals at the behest of the government.

[self biased]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem

does this actually work like they say it does? also, i apologize for posting a mother jones article.

[kentonio]

It wasn't an economic decision. They refused to compromise their morals at the behest of the government.

A corporation with morals? Awww, you're cute.

[Elok]

SB: I don't know, but I'm generally inclined to distrust anyone who threatens that an action could have unpredictable and unwanted consequences, then declines to specify what exactly those consequences might be.

It wasn't an economic decision. They refused to compromise their morals at the behest of the government.

Yes, that was my point: the "they just wanted to save money" explanation doesn't make any damn sense.

[kentonio]

SB: I don't know, but I'm generally inclined to distrust anyone who threatens that an action could have unpredictable and unwanted consequences, then declines to specify what exactly those consequences might be.

Really? Maybe not in this case, but it's not an unreasonable line to take on some issues. For instance if someone proposes a radical geo-engineering fix to counter climate change, it's fair enough to warn that it could have horrific consequences, without being able to specify exactly what those consequences would be. If you're tinkering with incredibly complex systems, sometimes the fact you can't accurately predict the consequences of an action is proof enough that the action itself is foolhardy.

[Elok]

The unforeseen-unspecified-negative-consequences argument was also used against gay marriage. And on here, when I suggested banning homeopathy. Applied consistently, it would ban all action, as well as inaction; what makes it valid, or not?

[kentonio]

The unforeseen-unspecified-negative-consequences argument was also used against gay marriage. And on here, when I suggested banning homeopathy. Applied consistently, it would ban all action, as well as inaction; what makes it valid, or not?

I fully agree that you can't apply it in every case, but I was just making the point that sometimes it's a reasonable argument.

Btw, you suggested banning homeopathy? I knew there was a reason why I liked you.

[Sava]

It wasn't an economic decision. They refused to compromise their morals at the behest of the government.

Hitler refused to compromise his morals.

[Elok]

HITLER DIDN'T SMOKE TOBACCO! LIGHT UP A MARLBORO NOW OR YOU'RE A NAZI!

[Patroklos]

What DD is refusing to acknowledge is that there are numerous other valid reasons birth control pills can be used to treat. Hobby Lobby is blanket refusing to provide said medical treatment for any reason what so ever so, no, it isn't just about birth control. DD knows this though and that's why he keeps glossing over the issue and pretending not to understand.

It's good to know Oerdin is still a shameless liar. It's one thing to mindlessly repeat talking points but at least use current ones you political allies haven't abandoned years ago.

Nothing in this ruling says chemical compound "x" can't be used, it says they can refuse to pay for chemical compound "x" for a specific use. Your doctor could prescribe it for you for anything other than birth control and the religious objection ruled on here would not apply. You employer (and maybe even you depending on the circumstance) probably wouldn't even know it.

Most medications have multiple uses. Hobby Lobby could ask their insurer to not cover a specific drug for any reason, but they did not do so and would probably run afoul of the same ACA minimum coverage regulations.