Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Contraception
Kittenman writes: The BBC is carrying information on a type of contraception (funded in part by Bill Gates) that takes the form of a microchip, inserted under the skin. The chip releases contraceptive hormones to the body until wirelessly advised not to do so. This device has several interesting applications and issues associated with it. The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions. There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. The chip will be available from 2018. This correspondent will watch the issues with interest.
Population control in the UK probably seems like a good idea in the minds of some. But I don't know how bad the hillbilly population is over there. Over stateside, yes it's certainly a problem. Both countries constantly have stories about welfare (benefits/entitlements) families with stupidly large families.
I do not see this ending well.
Silence is a state of mime.
Or America?
What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
First the Nest thermostat is said to be enough to make the Stasi blush, then insurance companies are compared to the Panopticon and now a birth control device is supposedly a government plot to control population levels?
This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.
I have read the same news from another source, and was discussing it with my coworkers. I can see at least four downsides:
1 - We still have to transpose a barrier on implanted chips. People don't like this idea.
2 - It can and will be interfered with, and make women pregnant when they don't want to. Even they trying to make the chip hard to interfere with, everybody working with tech knows that is not always possible. And a small chip on the hands of thousands of people will be a valuable target.
3 - It can malfunction. Like the above, things go wrong, and a recently implanted chip going crazy and releasing all its hormones on the body of a midterm pregnant woman will be nasty. It is made to not be removed even in the event of a pregnancy, so it's possible to happen.
4 - It can be damaged by an EMP pulse. If it's implanted on the arm, the body will get in contact with a lot of sources of electromagnetic radiation, like microwave ovens, cell phones and other transmitters, car ignition systems, and so on. Those sources can interfere with the chip.
I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
WTF? "hyper-reactionary" "liberal".
Sorry -- did I just find myself in a parallel universe?
If the government wanted to control population levles, then sure, this might be a good tool. But in itself it is only a slight improvement over existing methods, making it easier to micromanage population control. If an oppressive government wants to control the population, they already have the tools to do so. I don't see what this does to change that. What it might do is make it easier to do so clandestinely *in theory*, but in practice that case seems unlikely.
Write-in entry: Google Glass.
Being a 'glasshole' makes one look like such a complete dork, that there's no way on Earth any woman would want to copulate with you.
I replied, "We could change it now. Robots are doing all the work. Human beings -- all human beings -- could now be on perpetual vacation. That's what bugs me. If society had been designed for it somehow, we could all be on vacation instead of on welfare. Everyone on the planet could be living in luxury. Instead, they are planning to kill us off. Did you hear that women were trying to drink the water out of the river? Some people think they're putting contraceptives in the water."
From Manna.
The ruling prevents people from being forced to pay for others to have contraception. It does not make it illegal or prevent people from buying their own. As the ruling also noted, the government itself could pay for it itself instead of forcing others to violate their religious convictions, but they didn't because it was politically expedient to do it this way. You don't have to agree with their beliefs to understand that forcing people to violate them simply because its expedient isn't a good thing.
But I suspect you won't understand unless someone passes a law forcing you to violate your convictions.
Straight from Hugh Howey's Silo series!
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
Thankfully you still can't get pregnant when you use the back door.
Nope, not a parallel universe. To hear my liberal friends tell it, the supreme court ruled that Hobby Lobby has completely barred their employees from even looking at contraceptives and opened the door for any sort of flimsy religious excuse for any sort of employer abuse of employees. The reaction makes my conservative friends' Bengazi reactions look rational.
If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.
But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.
"There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. "
I can think of China... It has been widely known that besides "encouraging" abortions and sterilizations, there is a number of documented cases of forced abortions and sterilizations in the country. It would be too easy for them to implant the chip into the "people's offenders" or anyone who had at least one baby right at the birth clinics. Potential human rights violations made easy with technology.
As far back as I can remember there has always been fear or concern about a guy who wants to knock up a girl poking holes in the condom, or a girl who wants to get pregnant poking holes in the condom. Now with this chip you have a form of birth control that poking holes is as simple as finding the frequency it's on to turn it off. Now instead of worry that your partner screwing with you now you have to worry about a third party. Neighbor that doesn't believe in birth control builds a device to turn yours off. Parents tired of waiting for grandchildren buy said device. The list goes on and on. At least with condoms and the pill I just have to trust my partner, and maybe if I don't do a visual inspection. This is as bad of an idea as people who listen to others about what makes good lubes for condoms when they get told an oil based lube is good when in reality it's something that would really weaken, and increase the likelihood of it breaking, but in this case they don't have to be telling you lies to get you pregnant. They just have to be malicious enough.
I think it would be great to have a phone app that tells me whether the women I have just me in a bar has an operational chip implanted. Then I would not have to trust her saying "I'm safe" or that the condom will malfunction.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.
Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.
So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?
"His name was James Damore."
It seems like if there's one issue that rich people all over the world are throughly obsessed with, it's population control. It's all wrapped up with the future being dominated by visions of eco-doom (e.g Global Warming/Overpopulation/Peak Oil). Nobody can see a different future. It's pathetic.
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.
If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,
No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.
It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.
If the chip is under the skin, it should be pretty trivial to remove when need be. Until then it could function perfectly well without the wireless connection. So why bother with the extra energy drain, complexity, and reliability issues? Another overdesigned solution looking for a problem.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
I rest my case.
"His name was James Damore."
It's about more than just "abortifacients". http://www.nationalreview.com/... Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients". http://www.newrepublic.com/art... But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices? And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be, Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?
You are welcome on my lawn.
And yet another example of some idiot who did not even read the basic parts of this case.
"Then we have secure encryption. That prevents someone from trying to interpret or intervene between the communications."
The NSA will want a backdoor.
Wool.
Hugh Howey strikes again.
-- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
Another one is "Open Carry".
Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
http://www.cavemancircus.com/w...
http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp...
You are welcome on my lawn.
So in the future, everybody is required to be implanted with this gadget -- loaded with tranquilizers. The government has the activation key, no skin contact required, and if a demonstration or anything else gets "out of hand" the code gets broadcast, the "insurgents" go off into la-la land, and they send in the street sweepers to collect them.
Forget the tinfoil hat. Where's my tinfoil armor?
I hope Bill Gates is planning to include Kinect technology in a diaphragm.
I'm not going to read TFA, but in my mind, that's totally what's going to happen. I'm boggled by the possibilities.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think you're probably right in a lot of cases, but what I think this proposal is getting at is that right now we have a single contraceptive implant on the market that needs to be swapped out every 3 years. And, swapping it out means numbing up the area (which smarts), making a 1 cm incision with an 11 blade and fishing around with mosquito clamps to get the Nexplanon out which is often encapsulated with connective tissue and it doesn't want to come out, then injecting another one in. What if it could be turned on and off according to whether the woman wanted to have kids or was abstinent for awhile, so then we can avoid excess poking and prodding and hormones? If we could make that secure, would it be worth it? The cost of the Nexplanon in the US isn't much related to its materials (perhaps $5) as to the research costs and insurance and pharmaceutical company marble toilets with gold handles ($700). Couldn't an electronic Nexplanon with extended duration reasonably be cost effective if we can avoid the excess minor surgery, physician visits, and unintended babies?
Where did you see "complicated and expensive"? Get the implant once and forget it, unlike every other form available.
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
That is really surprising. Do you have a citation to support that? I ask, because individuals before the Hobby Lobby case did not have a right to not hire LGBT, so the Hobby Lobby case has zero impact on the LGBT community. If something was discriminatory prior to Hobby Lobby for an individual to do, then it is still discriminatory post Hobby Lobby. Nothing has changed in that regard.
Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.
If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,
No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.
It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.
Again, the Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with what you post. It was about not losing one's individual rights because of the way a business is organized. Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination? To win it's case, over those four contraceptives, the government had to show there was no other reasonable way to provide them short of violating the owner's religious rights. That was not the case and the court said so. The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.
This chip can be very useful for people who have to take in stuff regularly, like diabetes patients, for medical reasons. No insulin syringe into the leg needed, a simple app on the watch of a diabetes patient is enough. If it has direct access to blood, which I doubt, the chip can even perhaps detect too high blood sugar and automatically react, replacing the function of a pancreas.
Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.
They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.
Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it. Everyone knows how HL feels about this now. Seems simple, don't work there if you don't agree.
The Supreme Court majority can't even get their excuses for the Hobby Lobby verdict right. When the verdict came out, they said it was a limited verdict on just those forms of birth control and the form declaring the institution a religious institution was a good workaround. The next day, they said the verdict applies to all forms of birth control. (Apparently, the company just needs to "religiously believe" that something is wrong and they don't need to cover it in their health care plans.) The next day, they made a preliminary ruling in another case that said that the form declaring that an institution has religious issues with something wasn't good. The very form they pointed to 2 days earlier as a good thing. Now, merely requiring an institution to declare "we are religiously offended by X" is offensive.
Of course, Hobby Lobby apparently has no problem covering Viagra regardless of the marital state of their male employees.
I'd boycott Hobby Lobby, but we never shop there anyway as we've known about - and had issues with - the owners making personal religious beliefs into company policy for years. We much prefer Michael's or JoAnn's.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It's about more than just "abortifacients".
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients".
http://www.newrepublic.com/art...
But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices?
And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be,
Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?
It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means, that they could not force the owners of Hobby Lobby to violate their religious belief.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.
hey, guys...over here...yeah...**waves arms wildly**
**they have made a microchip that can release hormones and be controlled wirelessly from outside the body**
should it be used for contraception?
hmm interesting question...quick look over there! points away from the fact that we have **wireless hormone-releasing microchips** /joke
endorphins, dopamine, testosterone, adrenaline...
all of these and any other hormone is in play with this technology
so...should it be used for **mind control**?
Thank you Dave Raggett
If they were a privately held company and not incorporated, i would not have an issue with the ruling. If you are going to insulate yourself from the company, then your religious beliefs should not dictate what the company denies its employees.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Yea, it's a weird situation, but we have already make people pay for things they don't want. A real big one is war, you are required to pay taxes to support a war. It's irrelevant that you may or may not approve of it, or that you might be against killing people, even if that's your religious belief. You are required to pay for the food for the soldiers, which may involve killing sacred animals. You are also required to pay for courts, that may preside over divorce cases.
That's the real issue, the government can and does make you pay for things you disagree with, and you don't have a say in it (other than your vote). So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with? If the receiver disagrees with it, that's usually when your choice comes into play. But we found that doesn't really matter either, for example in a draft. Being against the war doesn't exempt you from being required to kill someone.
Probably just outside of your opinion-bubble.
"The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes.
except you ARE giving up those rights ine xchange for the protection it gives you.
You can't have all the advantage of private ownership and all the advantages of private ownership.
will, Apparently now you can.
LGBT will be next. SO will gay people. I mean, the logic used in the case can be applied to ANY federal law about ANY religious tenant.
Read that case you can swap contraception with anything.
". Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination?"
I understand people like you get locked into a biased narrative and you don't have the skills to change you narrative based on facts, but you also can't do math?
with your numbers, there are 4 ways they are discriminating.
"owner's religious rights. "
it's a corporation NOT a private solely owned business.
IT WAS the case, and members of the court sided with there Personal Religious Belief.
IT is yet another underscore of how religion in government is bad.
Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others.
Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's not as bad as the confirmation bias you are using.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
sure they could have baked some security in, but that line item got cut in the budget. They'll just glue some encryption on later, it's easy to do.
Me not paying for your stuff is not the same as me keeping you from having it.
"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.
They were okay with the 1,196 that are on the market. It was just the 4, including two types of IUDs that were problematic.
Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.
I have never heard of this case, but you've just described exactly the opposite of 300+ years of corporations. You DO trade in rights as an individual when you form a corporation and you gain tons of rights too - such as protection from personal asset seizure. The whole point of a corporation is that the corporation is separate and distinct from your personal assets and it is NOT a partnership or sole proprietorship that can have assets seized..
The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.
Those are the same thing, so it does appears to have bestowed religious freedom on corporations if their owners want it. Again, if you want to own a corporation you ave to give something up in return. Size of the corporation is not relevant.
Is this in appeal somewhere? Because a single judge just fundamentally changed the way the western world functions.
And why should I be disallowed removing a parasite from my body?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So they want the advantages of being a corporate entity without the limitations? That's reprehensible and indefensible.
The Republicans will probably be split right down the middle between the religious nutjobs and the other nuts that want to implant it into poor people to keep them from breeding.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Given the chip's expected lifetime, a woman would have to replace it once, probably sometime in her late twenties, if she wanted to be protected from her teen years until menopause. Never mind the pill; that's a *huge* advantage over the next-longest-lasting implant (three-four years), much less the shots.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yep. There already is "wireless" birth control out there. They're made available as "birth control pills". No wires in there at all...
Hobby Lobby case is not about religious freedom. Not at all. It's about religious oppression. Using corporate power and enforcing their belief on to others.
Here is a clue: paying for insurance that covers contraception is NOT against any tenant of their religion.
Oppression? Who is being prevented from doing anything here? All that happened here is that employees are being told that if they want something, they might need to buy it themselves, rather than have someone else buy it for them.
Freedom is different from freebies.
So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?
The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.
There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.
"His name was James Damore."
Corporation - a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
i.e. It's a way for more than one person to own a business.
I'm often surprised at the number of people that will spout off about topics when the don't even know the definitions of the words they're using. If you own a family business and want to share ownership, it has to be a corporation. If it isn't, it will be under the ownership of one family member and there will be a legal and tax nightmare when that person dies.
They did not ask to be put into the situation where they control the womans healthcare. The government forced them, by law, to provide health care. Then the government forced them, by law, to include contraceptive devices that abort a fertilized fetus. (many of the contraceptive devices covered kill the post-fertilized egg) Their only option out was to pay a fine that would go directly to paying for the very same services they oppose.
From their point of view the government just required them to pay for their employees to have the ability to murder babies. Now, you can disagree with that point of view, I know I do. But it really is their point of view. They really do view it has killing babies. That's a violation of their ability to freely express their religion. The government could have addressed this a dozen different ways. Exempting them from the penalties if they didn't provide the care would have been the simplest. But they didn't. The whitehouse should have seen this coming, they should have provided a religious exemption, but they didn't.
The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions.
You're going to trust your body chemistry (moods, behaviors, etc) to a company that considers security as an afterthought?
Good luck.
Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?
Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a regulation created by the DHHS not the actual law passed by congress which is why the mandate doesn't override previous laws when in conflict) need to have a good reason to overcome someone's religious rights. It sets a criteria of (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
We can assume 1 is true as otherwise, they wouldn't have made the rule. What the court did is find that 2 wasn't satisfied because the government already exempted other groups and people for the same objections.
So why, because not only is there a constitutional prohibition that the government likes to ignore, but there is a law that supersedes a rule made and that law passed almost unanimously by congress.
So they want the advantages of being a corporate entity without the limitations? That's reprehensible and indefensible.
advantages? It's required. They'd go bankrupt without it and you know it.
The closest comparison would be the souths Jim Crowe laws from back in the day.
Sure you can vote, you just have to recite the constitution from memory!
Sure you can have religious freedom! You just can't stay in business if you do!
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).
Unless the woman is also a Glasshole.
...great, totally ineffective unless you have wireless intercourse as well.
"We" don't do it, it's wannabe dictators and parasites who implement such policies. A necessary war could be fought with volunteers and funded with war bonds. It's really a myth that you have to pay government at all, since the cost to forcibly collect generally exceeds what's supposedly owed. With government now printing unlimited money taxation is really just a show of dominance
You are not disallowed. You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.
That's the biggest lie of this. No one is disallowed anything. All it means if that either you have to pay for it yourself or seek funding from a different source.
But I know what you are doing- parasite.. The problem is the entire concept is so out of whack with reality that no one will be inflamed by your choice of wording.
BTW, Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling that prohibits government from banning abortions relied primarily on the fact that the government had no business knowing if you had an abortion or not or what kind of medical treatment you had and you were entitled to due process before they could violate your privacy. The PPACA or Obamacare for short, actually removes a lot of those impediments Roe relied on and I doubt it would still prevent government from banning abortions if they tried now. The problem is that the government now has a right to infringe on the privacy which forbade them earlier (at least on a federal level).
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car?
Quite possibly, yes. Not so much the due process rights, but the search and seizure, yes, and the free speech for sure. Just ask any number of Postal Workers or Sheriff's Deputies.
They're employed to do a job. It comes with restrictions.
How about for fishing or hunting?
I'd support any fishers or hunters being searched for poaching, yes. And otherwise subject to what conditions are necessary to maintain the conditions for public lands to support hunting. Not sure how free speech will be involved, and due process seems reasonable to keep, but if the government can make a good case, I suppose it might happen.
Of course, most likely it'd be to stop anti-hunters from taking the hunting licenses and disrupting the hunters.
Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
I have no problem with the building inspector coming to your home for that one either.
Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).
Why? You want something, is it not fair for there to be SOME conditions on that? And you didn't say "There are some limits on what should be give up" but rather "Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. " so yeah, I can dispute with you that a person can hunt or fish without being subject to a search, or that somebody can take a job from the government without being restricted as to their free speech.
And even due process can be argued as limited to some extend by the UCMJ.
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means
Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."
Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.
As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.
That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.
I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't think "boycott" means what you think it does.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They are privately held. Hobby Lobby stock is not publicly traded.
1. Invest in companies that sell diapers, baby pacifiers, baby clothing, baby food, etc
2. Exploit zero-day vulnerability in this product on Valentine's Day
3. Wait 9 months...
4. Profit!
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
Yes, SCOTUS has previously ruled that you do lose some 4th amendment rights when you receive a fishing or hunting license. http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Game-wardens-don-t-need-a-warrant-to-stop-cars-3383756.php Other cases have clarified that they can search your home, as well as your car, without a warrant and you lose those 4th amendment rights simply by being suspected of fishing or hunting.
"Someone who has "chosen to engage in the heavily regulated activity" of hunting or fishing has a "diminished reasonable expectation of privacy,"
The 4th amendment restricts Customs or even the TSA more heavily than it does Fish & Game Wardens.Thank goodness they abuse it less too.
My wife has Nexplanon. About $1,500, but 100% covered my insurance.
Fair? ITs freaking constitutionally barred. Should kids give up their rights to not have to pray in order to go to public school? It's the same concept or principle here- they can be home schooled or go to a private school if they don't want to pray to my God right. The government cannot say forget the constitution if you want to do X that we provide. If they did, X would be unconstitutional as well as the violations of the constitutionally protected rights.
Can the government say no one can ever vote democrat again and have a bank account because the government regulates banks? Secret ballots aren't in the US constitution so the mechanism can be created. And of course the answer is no- because your freedom of speech, freedom of association, cannot be limited by the government.
Here is a paper covering this chip, and a press release about the chip.
The Hobby Lobby owners are not forced to pay for other people's contraception out of their own pocket. However, they decided to form a corporation to take advantage of a lot of tax and liability incentives. Apparently, the SCOTUS decided that incorporating is all upside and zero downside.
Can I form a corporation, and, because I sincerely believe that paying taxes is immoral (I'll even provide some documentation that I sincerely believe that), not pay taxes on any money I take in through the corporation?
Yeah, didn't think so. Don't hide your religious bigotry behind a legal construct.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Religious psychosis is "normal" thus officially (in the shrink bible from both sides of the pond) not "mentally disordered", thus you're just "socially disordered" for not fitting into THEIR world.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
If you can kill everyone behind him. Same thing as getting fire upon by cops. You got to kill all present and probably any that come later.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
Then please tell me: how does this decision not apply to any other "sincerely held religious belief of a closely held corporation"? The SCOTUS might say that the decision is only supposed to apply to these particular scenarios, but I can't see how you can distinguish one sincerely held religious belief from another. Unless, of course, you let the government get into the business of deciding which religious beliefs trump which.
Then again, this is already happening, thanks to some enlightened congress critters wanting to legislate Baptist beliefs into government law.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Carry smartphone around like it was an appendage. Women stay away. Problem solved.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you put a straw man on a slippery slope, do you get adobe bricks that are so convenient for making mixed metaphors?
They did not ask to be put into the situation where they control the womans healthcare. The government forced them, by law, to provide health care. Then the government forced them, by law, to include contraceptive devices that abort a fertilized fetus. (many of the contraceptive devices covered kill the post-fertilized egg) Their only option out was to pay a fine that would go directly to paying for the very same services they oppose.
From their point of view the government just required them to pay for their employees to have the ability to murder babies. Now, you can disagree with that point of view, I know I do. But it really is their point of view. They really do view it has killing babies. That's a violation of their ability to freely express their religion. The government could have addressed this a dozen different ways. Exempting them from the penalties if they didn't provide the care would have been the simplest. But they didn't. The whitehouse should have seen this coming, they should have provided a religious exemption, but they didn't.
This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:
- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.
- This birth control is part of that healthcare.
Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.
We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (HL) don't like/agree/approve of it.
...people that run businesses must not be abused by the government and having their freedoms revoked just because they are running a business.
As I mentioned above, the owners of HL are free to use (or not) contraceptives as they choose. Weather they should be required to provide the insurance in the first place is a different matter entirely.
In this case which would you support, the freedom of the employees to make their own choices or the freedom of HL to try to dictate those choices for them?
Now now, you can only discriminate on the basis of your religion if you share the religion of the supreme court justices.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists beliefs are still subject to the constitution.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.
Hobby Lobby may not want to pay for certain (or any) coverage, but they are required to. The ACA was signed into law on 3-23-2010.
We're discussing under what circumstances (sky wizard edict, talking unicorn, invisible secret friend) parts of this law can be ignored, if you really want to ignore it and own a company, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.
This is getting a bit muddled, so I'd like to list a couple points of fact:
- HL is required to provide healthcare to their employees. The legislation has been enacted, it's a done deal.
- This birth control is part of that healthcare.
Nobody is telling the owners of HL not to use birth control. They have the right to make that choice for themselves.
We are talking about weather HL has the right to selectively refuse to provide this federally mandated medical care coverage to their employees because they (HL) don't like/agree/approve of it.
I tend to wonder if you'd feel the same way if you owned a business and the Federal government passed a law stating you had to pay for female genital mutilation procedures for young girls and "straight camps" for gays.
Not advocating a side, just seeking consistency. Out of 20 different birth control methods, the SCOTUS ruling continues to require HL and others like them to provide coverage for 16. There were 4 specific methods which the owners found to be abhorrent to their religious convictions. In essence, they consider those 4 specific methods to be murder. The other 16 are covered without objection and if the employees just have to use those four specific methods, there's nothing in the SCOTUS ruling stating that they can't; they'll just have to bankroll them on their own.
This doesn't strike me as a case where the concept of birth control or 'reproductive health' as a whole are under attack. Rather, this seems to be a legitimate situation wherein reasonable religious conviction clashed with law passed by Congress. The impact is quite limited and thus, the SCOTUS correctly provided reasonable latitude to the religious beliefs over the law.
People on the right are blowing this case way out of proportion because they see it as a victory against the ACA. People on the left are blowing this case way out of proportion because they either don't understand what actually happened or they're convinced it's a victory against the ACA. The reality is that it isn't any such thing; rather it's a fairly mundane case which wouldn't make it to page 4 below the fold if it weren't tied to the ACA and the President. In other words, relax, it's really no big deal.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Why are certain beliefs privileged?
Because the people who founded this country came here seeking relief from religious oppression. Thus, when they created their own government (the one we have today), they ensured that the highest law of the land specifically restrained the government from doing to future generations what the Crown had done to them. If you don't think religious beliefs deserve special consideration, feel free to propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating so.
Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?
That would be a more challenging case to prove. The benefit of belonging to a popular religious group is that the tenants are widely known. As such, one must only then demonstrate that one actually belongs to that group (and even so, only minimally; stating as much without evidence to the contrary would typically be enough) to gain protection from government policy, law, or action which would violate that group's religious beliefs. In the Hobby Lobby case, there were 4 specific methods of birth control out of 20 which the owners maintained violated their core beliefs. In essence, they viewed those 4 specific methods as murder, but raised no objection to the other 16. The SCOTUS found those beliefs to be sincere and reasonable, and found that there was no interest at stake compelling enough to override the protections afforded to the owners of Hobby Lobby by the US Constitution. This was found in no small part due to the multitude of other options available for those seeking to attain the goals of the underlying legislation.
It's actually a pretty mundane case and shouldn't get people this riled up, but it does because the ACA and the President are attached to it. If this case involved any other law but the President's signature legislation, nobody but SCOTUS buffs would have heard a word about it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
What an interesting perspective. Pray tell, once the baby is born, but still attached via the umbilical cord, is it still a parasite you can destroy at will? I don't actually care one way or another about abortion, but I do care about consistency. From a medical standpoint, there are some specific events such as fertilization, implantation, birth, etc which could be used as a basis for drawing the line between a non-human thing (which one might describe - as you did - as a "parasite") and a human being. Thus far, the only group that seems to define that line at a medically objective point are the religious crowd (who use fertilization as their starting point). Again, consistency.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
none of what you said is any kind of counterpoint to my comment
it's like you just wanted to show off how much you know about the blood-brain barrier
you have **no idea** as to the level of complexity of these things and what they are capable of doing
Thank you Dave Raggett
"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."
Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.
Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.
The government has the right to define minimum compensation packages for employees. Food and shelter are covered by the minimum wage laws. Minimum healtcare provision is covered by the ACA. Are you okay with the minimum wage? If so, why not the declared minimum healthcare provisions from the ACA, or is that you don't like the idea of other people using contraceptives.
Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.
And by no practical definition are any these forms of contraceptive about abortion. They simply prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, as happens naturally every month for many many women. Most (reasonable) people would say that pregnancy begins at successful implantation. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Therefore preventing implantion is not an abortion. You might as well say that deciding not to have sex is an abortion.
A dumped ex-boyfriend with some leet skills 'hacking' their ex-girlfriend into an unwanted pregnancy. Great idea.
Which is why it's a bad ruling. Corporations are a specific grant of public privilege and as such should have different rules than a sole proprietorship or partnership. A corporation is a public institution not a private one and thus has to be held to a higher standard. As a libertarian I completely agree that private institutions should be able to do exactly what the owners of The Hobby Lobby desire, a corporation should not. The correct response would be to revoke their corporate charter and require them to reform as a sole proprietorship or partnership.
The courts would agree with you, however, Hobby Lobby is not a public corporation and the ruling specifically talks about this. The law allows a family to incorporate a family business for liability and tax purposes. The position you are taking, and what the courts disagreed with, is that you are making somebody chose between their religious freedoms and full participation in business. Effectively, you are saying that if you want to practice your religious beliefs and run a business, you can only do so if you are willing to put your personal assets at risk and pay higher taxes.The SCOTUS said that was a violation of their freedom because, and this is important, the government had other means available to provide the service in question that would not infringe. If there had not been other alternatives, the court might have ruled differently.
These are family corporations, mainly LLCs and S Corps. They are not public corporations. They are basically partnerships that provide limited liability to the partners. The court ruling is specific to corporations that are not publicly traded and have five or fewer owners. Walmart can't benefit from this ruling, only family run businesses.
It is a lie that the only viable form of business is as a limited-liability corporation. There are thriving businesses using many other forms, including sole proprietorships http://www.sba.gov/content/sole-proprietorship-0 where the business *is* the person and so personal liability is unlimited.
Now that's a reasonable condition for a business to be afforded all the legal rights of a natural person because in that case the business has no additional rights that are unavailable to natural persons.
The Hobby Lobby decision was just another instance of the Roberts court letting corporations have their cake sand eat it too.
So, Hobby Lobby should remain a sole proprietorship and somebody slips and falls and sues the Greens and they potentially lose their personal assets, too? What you are saying is that if you want to exercise your religious rights you are not permitted to form an LLC or S Corp? If Hobby Lobby were a public corporation, then what you say would be true. But, if you are proposing that people who want to exercise their constitutional rights, to religion or anything else, must give up other rights and privileges, well the SCOTUS disagrees with you.
The actual law in question is the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by congress during the Clinton Administration. It basically says that the government cannot force a person to violate their religious beliefs unless it is for the common good AND there is no other reasonable way for the government to accomplish the goal.
The Hobby Lobby case did not question the common good part of RFRA. However, the courts ruled that since the government made an accommodation for private religious corporations, it could also make the same accommodation for other private corporations so as not to infringe on the religious rights of the owners. There were also some restrictions imposed in that it only apply to private corporations with five or fewer owners. These are not your big Walmart type of corporations, but family controlled businesses.
As for LGBT, this case has nothing to do with it. LGBT rights are already protected and regardless of what an individual's religion says about it, doesn't matter. It would be like saying the Hobby Lobby case will allow corporations to not hire blacks. It is simply false.
There is no oppression occurring with the Hobby Lobby case. Employees of Hobby Lobby will still have access to all of the contraceptives that everybody else will. If they are prescribed one of the four in the case, Hobby Lobby's insurance company will pay for it, not Hobby Lobby -- that is assuming the government uses the same accommodation that the religious corporations got.
The two owners of Hobby Lobby don't have their religious belief infringed by forcing them to pay for something they believe to be immoral and the workers still have full access like everyone else. Where is the oppression?
If they were a privately held company and not incorporated, i would not have an issue with the ruling. If you are going to insulate yourself from the company, then your religious beliefs should not dictate what the company denies its employees.
All privately held companies are incorporated. Sole proprietorships and partnerships are not. The owners of privately held companies are only partially insulated in that their personal assets cannot be attached by creditors. They are not the same as regular corporations. The ruling only applies to privately held companies that have 5 or fewer owners. It basically treats them like sole proprietorships and partnerships, which is how the IRS treats them.
Basically, you can't have the government pick and chose how it wants to view a business, at least not if what the government is trying to cause people to do something that violates their religious beliefs (or any other constitutionally protected right). Put differently, the government can't say when its convenient for them, you are an individual and when its not, you aren't.
The courts found that since this is a valid religious belief AND the government could provide the 4 questioned contraceptives through other means
Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?
No, they could not, because religious freedom is a protected right under the constitution. Also, the government is not going to pick up the bill for the 2 IUDs and the morning after pill and the week after pill that was all this case was about. Assuming they use the same accommodation that they made available to religious non-profits, the private insurance company will pay for it.
Now, the religious non-profits argue that the accommodation doesn't work because those same insurance companies will simply pass the cost back to them in higher premiums, so effectively they are still paying for it. However, the court was not asked to rule on the accommodation, itself.
So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."
Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.
As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.
That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.
I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.
When I talk about "they" I am not talking about a corporation, but Mr. and Mrs. Green who own Hobby Lobby.
Look at it this way. The Green's never provided IUDs and the morning after pill to their employees. The Greens already paid for birth control for their employees, just not 4 specific products. The ACA said that your employer must pay for your birth control. People are acting like Hobby Lobby employees are somehow harmed by not having their employer pay for something they never paid for in the first place.
The government has determined that it is in the best interest of the country for every woman to have access to birth control. HHS' own data shows that 90% of woman were on birth control prior to the ACA. Is making employers pay 100% of the cost going to change that? Even so, is it the only way the government could achieve its goal?
Yes, Hobby Lobby is a private corporation. As such, all profits and loss flows through to the Greens, just like it was a sole proprietorship. Forcing Hobby Lobby, the corporation to pay is equivalent to forcing the Green's to pay. .The SCOTUS determined that the government had other options available to providing woman access to the 4 types of birth control in question and therefore could not force the Green's to pay for something they were opposed to on religious grounds.
As a private corporation, all profit from Hobby Lobby flows directly to the owners and is taxed just like they were a partnership. As such, forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for IUDs for its employees reduces the profit and effectively has the Greens paying for it. If they were a public corporation, then the court would have ruled differently.
As for starting your own corporation, you are free to do that. You don't even have to object for religious grounds to keep from paying taxes, just form a not-for-profit. Of course, you will be taxed, like everyone else on your personal earnings. Just like the Greens are.
Civilization itself requires that we give up certain rights and accept certain constraints. For example, if someone kills my dog I'm not allowed to go next door and shoot him. Instead I'm required to report it to the police and allow the justice system to prosecute him instead. It's all a matter of which trade offs are reasonable and ethically consistent.
Your argument is based on the idea that the government is taking away the rights of an individual to express his religious freedom. My argument is that incorporation means the business is not an extension of it's individual owners but a public institution. Public institutions are governed in a much different fashion than private ones and rightly so. I'm not arguing that they should have to surrender their rights in order to participate in commerce, I'm merely arguing that they should have to be formed as a sole proprietorship or partnership to express this particular right under the current set of laws.
I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.
The Republicans will probably be split right down the middle between the religious nutjobs and the other nuts that want to implant it into poor people to keep them from breeding.
poor minorities and furrenurs. poor white suburban and rural people are "the real america".
What if you smoke? Should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for your cigarettes?
When the parasite is another human being. You also can't kill your brother in law whoi is always asking for money.
Good god, man... do your knuckles scrape the ground when you walk?
I tend to wonder if you'd feel the same way if you owned a business and the Federal government passed a law stating you had to pay for female genital mutilation procedures for young girls and "straight camps" for gays.
Assuming I found the idea of male or female genital mutilation and "straight camps" reprehensible I absolutely would feel the same way. See below.
There were 4 specific methods which the owners found to be abhorrent to their religious convictions. In essence, they consider those 4 specific methods to be murder.
If I consider cockroaches holy I still don't have the right to forbid or obstruct a fumigator from doing his job.
There are many actions I disagree with committed in my name (and with my tax money) by the federal, state and local governments in whose jurisdiction I happen to reside. The fact I don't like how my resources are being utilized does not give me the right to refuse to pay taxes, permission to disrupt law enforcement activities or anything similar.
In both cases there is a law in place. In my case I have to comply or face the consequences. In HL's case, they apparently do not have to comply with some of the law because they don't like it?
While I understand that HL was able to summon the money and political clout to push the issue clear through the Supreme Court for an exception, I remain unconvinced that what occurred here was just/right even though it's clearly legal.
OT: Thank you for your considered statements, reasonable tone and for not trying to turn this into a flame war.
I agree that's what they are saying, however my argument is that it is incorporation itself which is the dividing line rather than the private/public divide.
Incorporation, itself, is not the issue and doesn't really mean anything. There are numerous types of corporations, many of which don't even use the term corporation or incorporated. Corporations are defined by tax law. Does the US really want the IRS to determine what rights people have or not?
The reason most shareholders lose their "rights" is because they are just one of many that have an interest in a public endeavour (corporation). That is not the case with a privately held family corporation. The opinion on the Hobby Lobby case specifically addressed this when it acknowledge the difference between investing in a corporation and actually owning and operating the corporation. If Corporation A does things a shareholder disagrees with, they can divest their shares and invest in something in line with their views. The actual ownership is on paper and the value is the investment. However, with Hobby Lobby and other privately held corporations, the owner value is the company itself and divesting in it is basically forcing them to sell the family business. The courts said you should not have to choose between your faith and selling the family business because of a government requirement that could be met through other means.
Again, corporations are defined by tax law.
Digital Reproduction Management
I agree that's what the supreme court decided in a close 5-4 decision. I don't agree that's the correct interpretation. A corporation is much more than just a tax classification, it includes limits on liability, easier financing and a separation of ownership & management that makes it very different from a private institution. I agree with the primary dissenting opinion in this case where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities".
But Mr and Mrs Green are not the ones paying for the employees' health care. Rather, those checks are from the corporation.
Maybe you don't understand how employer health care works. The reason an employer provides health care is because an employee works for them. So, in a very real way, the value of the health care has already been earned by the employee. Thus, it's not Mr and Mrs Green paying for the health care at all is it? It's the employees who pay for it, with their labor (and also direct deductions from their paychecks). Employer health care is not charity.
Hobby Lobby is this era's version of Plessy v Ferguson. In a relatively short time, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oh, and you are absolutely wrong about Hobby Lobby being "just like it was a sole proprietorship". A closely-held corporation is not like a sole proprietorship. They are granted a level of exemption to liability by the government that sole proprietorships are not. That means there is a "veil" between the individual and the corporation.
Apparently, the five (male) justices on the Supreme Court who comprised the majority in the Hobby Lobby case believed that the veil is impervious to all but the Judgement of the Lord God Jehovah, based upon absolutely nothing but their own religious beliefs in the Lord God Jehovah.
As I said, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oh, and you are absolutely wrong about Hobby Lobby being "just like it was a sole proprietorship". A closely-held corporation is not like a sole proprietorship. They are granted a level of exemption to liability by the government that sole proprietorships are not. That means there is a "veil" between the individual and the corporation.
Apparently, the five (male) justices on the Supreme Court who comprised the majority in the Hobby Lobby case believed that the veil is impervious to all but the Judgement of the Lord God Jehovah, based upon absolutely nothing but their own religious beliefs in the Lord God Jehovah.
As I said, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.
I should have been more specific and said sole proprietorship and partnership, but got tired of typing that out. There are limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that are not corporations so your exemption to liability arguments still isn't correct. But even if it was, are you saying that if you want to start a business and protect your family assets, you must give up your religious freedom? It would seem that would violate the establishment clause of the constitution, but maybe you have a different spin on it.
But Mr and Mrs Green are not the ones paying for the employees' health care. Rather, those checks are from the corporation.
No, they are a privately held corporation. They are taxed on the companies total net income just like they were a partnership. As such, if paying for the IUDs and morning after pill costs the company, it costs them directly. It was specifically because of this direct pass through of income and its treatment by the IRS that the courts found in favor of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby were a publicly traded corporation, they would have lost the case, because only dividends are passed through so it is just an investment and they could chose to invest in other companies. But that is not the case.
Maybe you don't understand how employer health care works. The reason an employer provides health care is because an employee works for them. So, in a very real way, the value of the health care has already been earned by the employee. Thus, it's not Mr and Mrs Green paying for the health care at all is it? It's the employees who pay for it, with their labor (and also direct deductions from their paychecks). Employer health care is not charity.
I understand exactly how employer health care works as I am responsible for it of our organization. However, the Hobby Lobby case is not about employer health care, it is about the HHS mandate of the affordable care act. Now, it is possible that the Greens don't subsidize any of their employee's health care and the employee pays 100% of the cost. It is possible, but very unlikely.
I do agree that employee health care is not charity, it is part of the benefits provided to workers, since WWII. This isn't about health care. It is about the government saying that the Greens must pay for something that is contrary to their religious belief. The belief in question is that they believe that life begins at conception and making them pay for IUDs means they are being forced to pay for abortions. We may not agree with their belief, but that doesn't matter. The government cannot force somebody to violate their religious beliefs, even if it is for the common good, if the government can achieve the goal through other means that don't violate the persons religious belief.
Listen, the constitution has provisions in it that says government cannot do certain things. The 14th amendment makes these prohibited things bound to the states also. If the constitution says no law can be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then any law, including state law, that says you have no religious rights if you do X is defacto unconstitutional. Quit forgetting the important parts in order to push what you want to demonize (corporations).
So, can the US government, either state or federal, require corporations to pass out bibles to all their employees and contractors and reserve one hour of the work week for paid bible study? If not, why not and how does that jive with your disposition on corporations?
I didn't provide any substantial reason for prayer being mandated because the concept is ludicrous on it's own due to the US constitution forbidding it. But lets join your journey, suppose there was a study that showed people who pray do better in society (make better citizens) than people who do not. Surely you cannot be against better citizens can you? It doesn't matter though because it would still be unconstitutional. And yes, most school districts are incorporated for the purpose of separating their liability from the city. Or to be more accurate, "A school district is a legally separate body corporate and politic"
Yes, that came out mangled. What I was trying to ask is if you thought it would be reasonable for the government to say if you vote democrat you cannot have a bank account because they regulate banks? I would assume not but I saw your reply. Let me answer this, no it would not be reasonable because the government cannot make any law prohibiting your free speech or freedom of association and denying you the ability to have a bank account because of that would be violating the first amendment.
As for Mississippi, it's rather simple. Hold the primaries together, the person voting asked for either a democrat, republican, or independent ticket and they can choose from one but not more. If you feel the need to switch parties in order to vote whomever you think would lose to your guy, you run the risk of your guy not wining their primary.
It lost it's composure because I mangled the previous sentence. It's supportive of the government being able to check if you vote for a democrat or not in order to ban you from having a bank account. I would hope you would find the entire thought of that situation repulsive and unconstitutional- as it is just that.
First, the contraception mandate was not ever signed into law. It is a regulation created by the department of health and human services (also known as a rule) well after the law became law but the power to do so was in the law. Hobby Lobby is not required to follow the mandate.
Second, the parent I replied to was attempting to distort the ruling in order to inflame people with his wording choices on abortion. I pointed out how wrong he was.
Now, the RFRA or religious freedom and restoration act and the court ruling specifically spells out how and when these regulations can be ignored.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a personâ(TM)s exercise of religion _only_ if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the personâ"
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The court found that the mandate was not the least restrictive means and referred to what the government is already doing to get around religious arguments for other people, groups and entities as support for it not being the least restrictive. So according to this ruling, if there is a religious claim to be excluded and there is a less restrictive means to further the compelling government interest, it can be ignored by the person, company, group and so on.
but that doesn't mean the compelling government interest disappears or that the government cannot pursue it. It just means they have to use the lest (less) restrictive means to maintain or further it.
A straw man argument is when one party mischaracterizes what another party said in order to defeat the "reinterpreted" argument and thus appear to have "won". If you scroll up and actually read the words I wrote, you'll note that I never claimed HL took away anyone's freedoms or dictated choices to employees. Discounting the two straw man arguments in the previous post leaves your first line about why you're using your sock puppet account to reply and a statement about being free to negotiate a contract which clearly came from some other discussion. Rather than continue this thread, I think I'll just agree to disagree with you.
Assuming I found the idea of male or female genital mutilation and "straight camps" reprehensible I absolutely would feel the same way. See below.
I was hoping one of those might strike a cord, but consider if the Federal government stated you had to directly fund the murder of children up to say 5 years of age. Since many religious people believe that the life of a child begins at conception, that's what people like the founders of Hobby Lobby believe they are being told to do: directly fund the murder of children, not with the collection of taxes that go to a general fund, but rather by paying the private business that pays the private business that murders children. I would assume you would have significant objections to being forced to pay someone to murder children, but would you do it anyway simply to comply with the law? Or would you seek to be excluded from that requirement?
If I consider cockroaches holy I still don't have the right to forbid or obstruct a fumigator from doing his job.
No you don't, but I think you have to admit that a fetus/unborn child/baby/whatever-you-want-to-call-that-thing is significantly different from a cockroach, assuming you consider human life to be more important than insect lives. If you don't, that's fine, but I don't think we can have a good discussion. Assuming that you do, I actually still agree that no one has the legal right (though I would consider moral right a tougher call) to prevent someone from having a legal abortion or to prevent a doctor who performs abortions from doing his job. However, that isn't what's being discussed here. What we're talking about is the founders of Hobby Lobby, whose religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder, being forced by their government to directly fund that practice. In essence, from the perspective of their religion, they're being forced to directly fund the murder of children. Regardless of what you or I or any of the justices of the Supreme Court believe, it's what the founders of Hobby Lobby believe and they would almost certainly have to conclude that compliance with that law would damn their immortal souls to Hell for all eternity. I think that makes it rather difficult to defend for a nation that purports to respect religious beliefs.
There are many actions I disagree with committed in my name (and with my tax money) by the federal, state and local governments in whose jurisdiction I happen to reside. The fact I don't like how my resources are being utilized does not give me the right to refuse to pay taxes, permission to disrupt law enforcement activities or anything similar.
Your tax dollars go into a general fund. From that fund, activities you disapprove of are funded. Yet that's a far cry from them forcing you to pay for those activities directly. For instance, if you believe that all wars are evil and that fighting them and killing in them is murder (the truly convicted total pacifist), you may not like that the US government buys bombs and missiles with monies collected through taxes, but they aren't telling you that you have to write a check to Lockheed for an order of 5,000lb JDAMs so they can be dropped on someone's house. In other words, there's at least some difference between being forced to pay into a fund of fungible funds which is sometimes used for things you dislike and being forced to cut a check to pay for something that directly contradicts your firmly held beliefs.
In both cases there is a law in place. In my case I have to comply or face the consequences. In HL's case, they apparently do not have to comply with some of the law because they don't like it?
There are plenty of cases where you don't have to comply with the law. For instance, it's against the law to kill another human being. However, if that human being is trying to seriously harm you and you have no other choice to avoid that serious harm, you're exempted from the consequences of violating t
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
If your ideas had any merit the free market would recognize that and corporations would pay you large piles of rhodium to write them down. Clearly they don't.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".