SCOTUS rules in favor of Little Sisters of the Poor in ObamaCare contraception case

[SugarDaddy1]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration acted within its authority when it expanded exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement for employers to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception -- in a victory for Little Sisters of the Poor, the Catholic group that has been at the center of the national debate over the mandate.

The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Trump administration and the Catholic charity that cares for the elderly in two related disputes against Pennsylvania, which sued over the validity of a rule from the Trump administration that allowed religious-affiliated groups and some for-profit companies to opt-out of providing contraception coverage to employees.

Source

 

[HisArpy]

2 dissenters, both citing the minimal cost of contraceptives are a basis to overturn moral beliefs.

As if morals are based on money...

 

[Wrong Element]

Consider yourselves warned: People who want to defend the idea that your employer ought to make decisions about your health care are hastening the day when employers won't be involved in the process at all.

 

[Adre]

2 dissenters, both citing the minimal cost of contraceptives are a basis to overturn moral beliefs.

As if morals are based on money...

As if contraceptive use actually has anything to do with morals.

 

[HisArpy]

Consider yourselves warned: People who want to defend the idea that your employer ought to make decisions about your health care are hastening the day when employers won't be involved in the process at all.

When the government mandates that employers provide HC which follows the government's coverage requirements, or none at all, guess which choice wins...

 

[HisArpy]

As if contraceptive use actually has anything to do with morals.

The question isn't whether the belief is "correct". It's whether the person has the right to hold that belief. Cost isn't a consideration.

 

[FlowersForFun]

As if contraceptive use actually has anything to do with morals.

For the religious it does.

Just because you don't care doesn't doesn't make it ok for the authoritarian leftist you support to violate peoples rights.

You and yours are just going to have to keep that "rights for me but regulations for thee" bull shit in the blue controlled shit holes.

 

[Adre]

The question isn't whether the belief is "correct". It's whether the person has the right to hold that belief. Cost isn't a consideration.

Holding a belief is one thing. Foisting the consequences on to others is another.

 

[Adre]

For the religious it does.

Just because you don't care doesn't doesn't make it ok for the authoritarian leftist you support to violate peoples rights.

You and yours are just going to have to keep that "rights for me but regulations for thee" bull shit in the blue controlled shit holes.

STFU you lunatic.

 

[HisArpy]

Holding a belief is one thing. Foisting the consequences on to others is another.

So where does the dissent regarding low cost come into your thinking?

 

[Adre]

So where does the dissent regarding low cost come into your thinking?

As irrelevant.

 

[FlowersForFun]

The question isn't whether the belief is "correct". It's whether the person has the right to hold that belief. Cost isn't a consideration.

He knows.....he's just deflecting from the fact that he supports someones right to have a belief if and only if it's a belief he agrees with.

Otherwise fuck them and their civil rights.

The same double standard shit (D)'s are demonstrating all over and in so many ways.

Absolute rights for me....strict regulations for thee.

 

[HisArpy]

As irrelevant.

Which is why there were only 2 dissenting voices to the opinion citing that basis and SEVEN who disagree with you on the other point you raised.

Somehow I think you're losing this argument because you don't really understand what the argument is about.

 

[Adre]

He knows.....he's just deflecting from the fact that he supports someones right to have a belief if and only if it's a belief he agrees with.

Otherwise fuck them and their civil rights.

The same double standard shit (D)'s are demonstrating all over and in so many ways.

Absolute rights for me....strict regulations for thee.

Holding a belief is one thing. Foisting the consequences on to others is another.

This.

 

[HisArpy]

He knows.....he's just deflecting from the fact that he supports someones right to have a belief if and only if it's a belief he agrees with.

Otherwise fuck them and their civil rights.

The same double standard shit (D)'s are demonstrating all over and in so many ways.

Absolute rights for me....strict regulations for thee.

It's the authoritarian father complex: Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[chillywilly2]

So, a catholic employer doesn't have to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance plan.

Does that mean a JW employer can opt out of providing blood transfusions in their health insurance plan?

And an aboriginal employer can only offer herbs as treatment?

What a country

 

[Adre]

Which is why there were only 2 dissenting voices to the opinion citing that basis and SEVEN who disagree with you on the other point you raised.

Somehow I think you're losing this argument because you don't really understand what the argument is about.

I’m not losing anything. However I do believe the decision should have been 9-0 the other way. Call me inflexible on church/state issues.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Holding a belief is one thing. Foisting the consequences on to others is another.

The only people Foisting anything on other people are the (D)'s and their bullshit authoritarian HC scheems including ACA.

STFU you lunatic.

Hit authoritarian leftist are a hollerin!!!

Watch out they're going to force you at gunpoint to buy shit that violates your religious beliefs FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

Suuuuper progressive.....
https://66.media.tumblr.com/5da917771da2849ae3f8aa583f0fd8ad/tumblr_mz1gke8DZi1t11deto1_500.gifv

 

[HisArpy]

So, a catholic employer doesn't have to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance plan.

Does that mean a JW employer can opt out of providing blood transfusions in their health insurance plan?

And an aboriginal employer can only offer herbs as treatment?

What a country

Someone doesn't understand the words "religious exemption".

 

[icanhelp1]

Holding a belief is one thing. Foisting the consequences on to others is another.

For Catholics it's not just a belief, it's dogma.

 

[chillywilly2]

2 dissenters, both citing the minimal cost of contraceptives are a basis to overturn moral beliefs.

As if morals are based on money...

we know trumps are

 

[chillywilly2]

Someone doesn't understand the words "religious exemption".

maybe not...do they get to opt out or not...you guys are confusing

 

[icanhelp1]

Someone doesn't understand the words "religious exemption".

All Catholic medical organization cannot ** BY DOGMA ** participate in birth control of any sort whether it be abortion or contraceptives.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m not losing anything. However I do believe the decision should have been 9-0 the other way. Call me inflexible on church/state issues.

Which is basically my point here.

You believe that your personal opinion is the one that controls EVERYTHING. Except that's not how it works. Not in ANY country on this planet.

Their beliefs are not required to conform to your opinions. Nor are their beliefs required to be based on monetary cost.

 

[HisArpy]

maybe not...do they get to opt out or not...you guys are confusing

But US Supreme Court decision 7-2, they get to opt out.

But you'd know that if you'd bothered to READ the OP's linky instead of just shooting off your keyboard.