The Great Obscenities in the US today.

[jar]

Their choice wasn't about discrimination,only murder.


John

When you use terms like "murder" related to a birth control choice how can anyone possibly take anything you say seriously or do anything more than laugh.

No abortion is murder. Now I understand part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance NewSpeak would like people to think that is true, it simply is another falsehood like saying they are "ProLife"..

Murder is a very special case and can only be determined in a court of law. Now they might think abortion is murder but that is just another example of their ignorance.

What I say may not be taken seriously(and you probably don't),but it is what it is.



John

But what abortion is is NOT murder. Calling it murder may simply be ignorance, or delusion but in many cases it is simply dishonesty.

[Mullen88]

Great Post.

Just a couple of things I'd like to add.

USA, A Silent Dictatorship.

If you read into history you will find that the Ancient Greeks (the inventors of democracy) had a system for their government officials which aided in the avoidance of personal interests being pursued over the interests of the population. This system helped the civilization by prohibiting family succession and limiting the amount of years of service one could attain. They recognized, through experience I'm sure, that if a son or brother takes over in office his motives and actions will be persuaded by his families interests, and not the interests of the people. The latter being the main instigation for a governmental system.

The USA boasts a democracy but since the 80's I can't help but notice a family oriented trend. Dictatorships support family succession! Democracies don't. How many Bush's and Clinton's will be forced onto the ballots! And why doesn't the population say something about it. Clearly the United States has passed through the idea of democracy and settled on an age old tactic - Those in power stay in power, and are there for the interests of the powerful - without even an inkling of an uprising from its population. The two party system does not work... there are a lot more issues and views that need to be addressed than are being addressed, and the mindset of "Republican" of "Democrat" is as old as "Presbyterian" or "Catholic". These leaders are spending your tax dollars over seas when 70% of your bridges in the USA are in desperate need of repair. They spend more money on their campaign than spent on education. Sickening. And when someone gets into office no one tries to work with them, the other party spends its time critisizing and starting arguments when they should be working together to find a solution for the PEOPLE. Respect your leaders, whether you voted for them or not!

Please read the writings of your forefathers and compare their ideals and beliefs to what America has become. In most cases it is the exact opposite of what they wanted. Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated the idea of a central bank and I think if he saw what has become of the USA he would be disgusted.

Anyways, couple things to think about.

Is America really a Democracy, or a Silent Dictatorship?

Where are your tax dollars being spent? And why?

Are the structures and bridges in America Safe?

How many people would get shot if not everyone had a gun?

What would America's forefathers say about the state of the country they loved so dearly?

Why are so many of our troops and dollars in other countries?

If a foreign land's army came into the USA and told them how to live would you accept or resent their efforts? Isn't that what your doing overseas?

Anyways, just some thoughts on the state of affairs in today's world. Please read with an open mind. and always question authority! Try to find the motives behind their madness. If you can't find one, follow the money trail. It's there.

And Please no Bush or Clinton in 2016!!!!! Open your eyes America. 300 million people with two families interests' in stride.

Thank you kindly,
Sean.

[jar]

Some interesting and I think relevant quotes from Theodore Roosevelt:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"Now, this means that our government, national and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice -full, fair, and complete -and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt by mob-violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, and I most dislike and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and specially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
Theodore Roosevelt

[manoeuver]

I believe we would have been well served by a wall of separation between Business and State. The Founders' most egregious oversight.

[TSherbs]

The company is not discriminating based on any class or section of the population. If they provided these services for one group, but not others, that would be discrimination.

Apparently the owners of Hobby Lobby do not object to covering male employees' vasectomies nor do they object to paying for Viagra. Female employees are subject to restricted health benefits while male employees are not.

While it may seem contradictory,having a vasectomy isn't killing an embryo. Neither does Viagra. Their choice wasn't
about discrimination,only murder.


John

Not in the eyes of the law. Of course, according to the Catholic Church (and some Protestant groups), impeding the sperm from naturally reaching the ovum is, through whatever means, a grave sin (contrary to the Law of God). On these grounds, men should be denied any monies for services related to prevention of conception.

[HughC]

Religious doctrine ingrained in politics can produce some strange and illogical decisions. Ireland is one such example where abortion is illegal, so paranoid about it that at least one pregnant women was denied a life saving abortion ( of an infected fetus that had to die before removal and blood poisoning killed her ). There are countless examples in Muslim countries of women who have been raped charged with having sex outside marriage, how logic defying is that ? Decisions such as the Hobby Lobby one would appear to be a very unwelcome one that makes the next step towards religious dominated politics easier.

Regards
Hugh

[stevekolt]

Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.

[jar]

Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.

Other than the fact that it really is an obscene policy it is also directed at a particular sex.

Yes, a very good option is to spend money elsewhere but thankfully in the US we can also speak out against bigotry.

[HughC]

Why is this politics? And it is certainly nothing like either of your examples HughC. This is a private company deciding what/what not to provide in their insurance coverage for their employees. I have congenital, severe bilateral hearing loss. Only one year in my entire working history did my employer offer any kind of coverage. If It was a make or break point for me I would have tried to find a job that did provide the coverage. This is a PRIVATE entity, not a political one.
Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, Kosher restaurants, and businesses owned by observant Jews are closed from sundown Friday, through sundown Saturday. As private entities they are entitled to do so, just as Hobby Lobby is entitled to their business decisions. Don't like it? Spend your money elsewhere. If Sunday is your favored day to work, don't take a job at a business that is closed on that day. And if you want insurance coverage that your employer does not choose to provide, get a job elsewhere.

A Supreme Court judgement supported the companies right to act as it has, ie enforce the religious belief of the owners on their employees regarding health care, and not based on medical opinion. Why is it potentially political? The laws in Ireland are driven by religious beliefs, ie they drive a number of political decisions. Each religiously inspired act of discrimination that wins court approval slowly changes the values of the law and by default the political ground changes to accepting such actions as fair and reasonable. That's why these sort of decisions have political ramifications. In the Hobby Lobby case their position is not supported by medical fact nor does it address the employees right to options a doctor may recommend. Do you want that rational embedded in US society especially given the high cost of health insurance?

Few would argue with the right of a private business to observe the religious practices of the owners to meet their religious obligations, that's not an issue but this was not a business decision by Hobby Lobby and it's not their religious obligation to enforce their views on employees in a discriminatory fashion, which providing vasectomies and viagra ( ?) to male employees while excluding an I.U.D. that prevents a pregnancy for female employees does. This is now an acceptable practice that any company can use.

Given it's an anti abortion action by Hobby Lobby it's bound to generate strong opinions, the right to have or not have an abortion ( and medical opinion is that what Hobby Lobby excluded does not constitute abortion anyway) is more a state issue ( political) than a business one.

Enough of these decisions and slowly the political climate changes to reflect them, that's why it's a slow progressive move to non secular government.

[dneal]

Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

[stevekolt]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

[pengeezer]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

[HughC]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh

[HughC]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

[HughC]

Is Hobby Lobby or it's owners enforcing their beliefs on their employees? The employee may still purchase contraceptive devices or obtain an abortion. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for it, because it runs counter to their own beliefs. I think it's an important distinction, regardless of which side one sympathizes with.

The answer is yes because they won under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The abortion part is a straw man in a lot of ways, at present pregnancy ( by definition) begins when a fertilized egg implant in the uterus lining and the 4 methods under question are designed to prevent ovulation or fertilization not remove an implanted egg. Clearly other methods are still available through the health plan but if they cause a problem or medical advice suggests an I.U.D. then you're discriminated (financially disadvantaged) against by being denied an option available to others in the private sector covered by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 .

I think it's an issue that Hobby Lobby and the medical profession differ in what defines a pregnancy. How can Plan B which inhibits ovulation be any different to a regular contraceptive pill ? The religious belief and fact are different, being given legal protection for false beliefs at the expense of fact is , as Jar would say, an obscenity.

We all either do or have previously discriminated against others because of race ,religion or "whatever" at some point, sometimes without even realizing. I certainly accept discrimination will always exist but I think the less the better. I think the Hobby Lobby outcome goes against that and it also opens the way for more actions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could discriminate. If the majority of people in the US wish to have a greater religious base in their legal system ( and hence political system) then so be it, if the majority don't they need to ensure it doesn't occur by stealth. The US (and Australia but as much ) has a dark past of discrimination, the attempts to achieve anything like a true democracy have progressed so I wonder why anyone would embrace turning back the clock as acceptable.

[stevekolt]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

[HughC]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

No it wasn't, what you argued was that it's okay to discriminate on religious belief.

No, what I argued was that it was an employers right to decide what benefit/group of benefits they want to provide to their employees. It is their privately held company. I would feel the same if they chose to provide abortifacients. I would disagree with their decision, but it would be legal, and as a private company, it should be their right to make that decision.

They wanted to not provide what the Department of Health and Human Services stated they should, their legal obligation at that time. You argued it was perfectly okay to not provide the legal minimum standard because of religious belief, a religious belief that was then used to discriminate against some people. It is not an "employers right to decide" but a legal obligation to provide a certain standard. A wealthy country like the US should be able to provide adequate, affordable healthcare to it's citizens and the same minimum standard should apply to all ( that it doesn't is a major failure ), that you have certain companies trying ( and succeeding) in altering that standard downwards and in a discriminatory way should be viewed as a retrograde step even more so when not fact based.

This is where a national health scheme run by Government is an alternative worth consideration as it removes this type of issue from the workplace and away from the influence of extreme ideology.

[stevekolt]

Here is a major point we certainly disagree on. The government should not be deciding what benefits a private employer provides. If it is a governmental entity, they would/should have the right to decide. The founders would be incredulous over the extended reach of our government. As I said earlier, my employers did not provide for hearing aid coverage. I chose to be their employee. That did not give me the right to demand they pay for my (needed) hearing aids. I also take exception to the categorization of "extreme ideology". My only belief involved here is the issue of what one may do with their own company. If I don't agree with a companies policy about anything, I have the right to not work for them, and not spend my money for their product or services. I most certainly do not have the right to demand benefits they don't offer.

[pengeezer]

dneal, that is the point I was trying to make.

Agreed. A private company can choose how it sets up its employe insurance and the employees(or future employees)
can make their decision if they feel that they want to have an abortion. They just can't tell their employer that they
have to provide abortion coverage. And that is the right of the employer to not provide that coverage.



John

John.

The issue was about contraception not abortion, the claim the methods in question where a form of abortion are not supported by medical opinion. The other point is this is about opting out of the requirements of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) which sets the standard for provided coverage which is a legal requirement. The standard is simply a reflection of the general communities health needs.

Regards
Hugh

Hugh,I respect your right to think and feel as you do,but the gist of the entire court case was about the right of
a private company to provide or not provide health care as it chooses,not contraception/abortion. The owners of
Hobby Lobby chose to not have certain types of health care for women,but they didn't tell any of their female em-
ployees that they couldn't go out and get an abortion. It was their choice to make up their health insurance as they
chose--even on biblical grounds. It is the principle of allowing privately-held companies to do as they chose,whether
someone else likes that choice or not,as long as their employees are adequately provided for. As Steve said,the em-
ployees do not get to tell the employer what they can and can't do.



John

[HughC]

The Government did, whether they should or not is a different matter as is what that should cover. I'm sorry you take offense to the words "extreme ideology" , it simply means outside the expected norm and in this case as their claim has no medical basis it probably fits. Every company has to act within the law, you don't actually have a total freedom of choice so that's a strawman, try deciding not to pay tax for some reason. If your going to have a scheme it needs minimum standards, that should be obvious. Obamacare goes a long way to providing a decent affordable health care system to all regardless.

How do you expect people on low wages or socially disadvantaged to be afforded adequate healthcare ? The US is a rich country yet around 50 million people can't afford health cover , how many die every year from preventable causes? And you want to lower and remove health cover to even more people !! You need to look at "the big picture" , do you really believe the Founders would think letting people die because they where poor as acceptable? Adequate health care should be viewed as a public issue of great importance and that's what the US Government is trying to achieve, they could just tax businesses instead of requiring them to provide coverage but in the end it's the same result. Still while it does there is a minimum standard that has to be met and eroding that should be avoided especially when it's discriminatory.

A lot of people don't have a job choice, they take what they get because there's no option.