Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Ruling

[NYC17]

Yes, there was. Medically speaking, a pregnancy begins at implantation, because without implantation most of the development process cannot take place. Most fertilized eggs don't implant.

You cannot abort a pregnancy that never began.

Or if you can, vasectomies would fall under that category, but Hobby Lobby has no issue with those.

- - - Updated - - -

Natural failure to implant vs intentional prevention of it is the distinction argued.

Is a vasectomy not an intentional prevention?

[Kellhound]

By that logic cancer cells are their own entity and killing those would also be in violation of religious policy

Only if you felt that it constituted a distinct new human.

[Chrysia]

Natural failure to implant vs intentional prevention of it is the distinction argued.

A woman's actions can also cause failure to implant, hence, manslaughter suspect.

Plan B only may stop implantation. It's unclear. They know that it stops ovulation if the egg hasn't been released yet.

[Slaskra]

They ARE biased, that's the point. Everyone has biases.

Yes! That is exactly what I've been saying. I've also been saying, however, that the natural circumstances of ones life, such as sex, race, whatever, are not an indication that a bias automatically exists when making decisions that largely affect other sexes, races, whatever.

However, the proof that people are able to overcome biases is not represented in the majority opinion by the likes of Scalia and Thomas.

This assumes that they had a bias *against* women that stemmed from their own male-ness in the first place. I'll say it again - I recognize that biases exist, but the specific bias that you originally argued existed in this ruling, which is the supposed inherent bias against women that stems from being a man, can not be demonstrated in this case.

[Kellhound]

Or if you can, vasectomies would fall under that category, but Hobby Lobby has no issue with those.

- - - Updated - - -



Is a vasectomy not an intentional prevention?

It prevents the fertilization from ever having any chance of happening, not preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the host.

- - - Updated - - -

A woman's actions can also cause failure to implant, hence, manslaughter suspect.

Plan B only may stop implantation. It's unclear. They know that it stops ovulation if the egg hasn't been released yet.

You are also ignoring the term "argued" at the end of my statement.

[Chrysia]

It prevents the fertilization from ever having any chance of happening, not preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the host.

There's no evidence that Plan B prevents the attachment. It's designed to prevent ovulation and fertilization, and only may prevent implantation if the egg has been fertilized.

The IUD and "week after" pill is another story, but they still aren't abortifacients, medically speaking.

[Slaskra]

Except it was. They had medical experts testifying that the four contraceptives HL didn't want to cover aren't abortifacients.

They aren't abortifacients according to how a secular person may define abortion or pregnancy, but once again, disputing this would have been a direct challenge to the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

Which, although I would have gladly welcomed such a challenge, SCOTUS ultimately unanimously decided that it would not be appropriate to pursue, and approached the issue from a direction of what it meant for corporate rights, religious freedom, and women's interests.

[Kellhound]

There's no evidence that Plan B prevents the attachment. It's designed to prevent ovulation and fertilization, and only may prevent implantation if the egg has been fertilized.

The IUD and "week after" pill is another story, but they still aren't abortifacients, medically speaking.

The "may" is clearly enough for them to object to it, and given we are discussing belief and not science, that is what mattered.

[Chrysia]

They aren't abortifacients according to how a secular person may define abortion or pregnancy, but once again, disputing this would have been a direct challenge to the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

Which, although I would have gladly welcomed such a challenge, SCOTUS ultimately unanimously decided that it would not be appropriate to pursue, and approached the issue from a direction of what it meant for corporate rights, religious freedom, and women's interests.

The problem, here, is that now SCotUS must weigh in on other "corporate religions" on other issues, and must either side with the religion in all cases, or effectively declare certain religious beliefs "better" than others. They've literally painted themselves into a First Amendment corner, and the dissent specifically notes this.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The "may" is clearly enough for them to object to it, and given we are discussing belief and not science, that is what mattered.

If you're talking about Hobby Lobby objecting, they really don't give a fuck, they just want to save money and this is the first step to denying people benefits.

[Chrysia]

The "may" is clearly enough for them to object to it, and given we are discussing belief and not science, that is what mattered.

That's the problem. In court, "belief" shouldn't matter. It should be entirely what you can prove.

[NYC17]

Yes! That is exactly what I've been saying. I've also been saying, however, that the natural circumstances of ones life, such as sex, race, whatever, are not an indication that a bias automatically exists when making decisions that largely affect other sexes, races, whatever.


This assumes that they had a bias *against* women that stemmed from their own male-ness in the first place. I'll say it again - I recognize that biases exist, but the specific bias that you originally argued existed in this ruling, which is the supposed inherent bias against women that stems from being a man, can not be demonstrated in this case.

You can say it as many times as you like in order to prove to yourself that you think you have a point.

You're basically trying to argue that they have natural biases, but those biases are not in effect here because...you say so. But you fail miserably to demonstrate how they overcame their natural bias, and how this ruling was made in absence of those biases. There is nothing in their history to suggest that they have overcome their biases. It's quite the opposite in fact. Scalia's existence alone nullifies your argument.

The problem for them is their bias negates objectivity and equality.

- - - Updated - - -

It prevents the fertilization from ever having any chance of happening, not preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the host.

An IUD, to which Hobby lobby objects, performs the same function. It prevents fertilization.

[Slaskra]

You're basically trying to argue that they have natural biases, but those biases are not in effect here because...you say so. But you fail miserably to demonstrate how they overcame their natural bias, and how this ruling was made in absence of those biases. There is nothing in their history to suggest that they have overcome their biases. It's quite the opposite in fact. Scalia's existence alone nullifies your argument.

The problem for them is their bias negates objectivity and equality.

Saying that someone has a certain bias is a positive claim.
Saying that someone appealed to a certain bias for a decision is a positive claim.

We are not talking about biases in general, only one specific type of bias that you initially claimed to have existed and influenced the decision in this ruling. The burden of proof is on you, friend.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem, here, is that now SCotUS must weigh in on other "corporate religions" on other issues, and must either side with the religion in all cases, or effectively declare certain religious beliefs "better" than others. They've literally painted themselves into a First Amendment corner, and the dissent specifically notes this.

It is a tough situation. Hopefully SCOTUS can draw a reasonable line somewhere, otherwise it might be best to separate healthcare obligations from corporations, in some way or another.

[Deleted]

Yes, there was. Medically speaking, a pregnancy begins at implantation, because without implantation most of the development process cannot take place. Most fertilized eggs don't implant.

You cannot abort a pregnancy that never began.

Gestationally speaking the pregnancy begins prior to actual fertilisation, so wrong.
Also, Life begins at conception.
Also redemption, conversion for instance.

[Kellhound]

That's the problem. In court, "belief" shouldn't matter. It should be entirely what you can prove.

You can't prove or disprove religion, but it is clearly protected. Thus, belief has to matter.

This is not to say religious belief is given carte blanche power to supersede all laws in the US, as there is the "compelling State reason" out.

[Kapadons]

If a Jehova's Witness owns a closely-held company, can he now refuse to offer insurance that covers blood transfusions? If not, why not? Will SCOTUS now be the arbiter of which religious beliefs are worthy of First Amendment protections?
.

I keep seeing people bring this up as if it's an apples to apples comparison. It isn't. Blood Transfusions are medical necessity in most cases. An IUD and MAP's are not. Please stop using this example.

[NYC17]

Saying that someone has a certain bias is a positive claim.
Saying that someone appealed to a certain bias for a decision is a positive claim.

We are not talking about biases in general, only one specific type of bias that you initially claimed to have existed and influenced the decision in this ruling. The burden of proof is on you, friend.

The "proof" is in the Justice's histories. Scalia's stupidity about women's rights...Thomas' rather checkered history with sexual harrassment. Only partisan clowns believe they'd be capable of ruling without biases after years of demonstrating otherwise. I thought Chrysia made that clear to you earlier. Apparently not.

[Kellhound]

You can say it as many times as you like in order to prove to yourself that you think you have a point.

You're basically trying to argue that they have natural biases, but those biases are not in effect here because...you say so. But you fail miserably to demonstrate how they overcame their natural bias, and how this ruling was made in absence of those biases. There is nothing in their history to suggest that they have overcome their biases. It's quite the opposite in fact. Scalia's existence alone nullifies your argument.

The problem for them is their bias negates objectivity and equality.

- - - Updated - - -



An IUD, to which Hobby lobby objects, performs the same function. It prevents fertilization.

I was pointing out a difference between two birth control concepts. I really don't care what any of them actually do as it pertains to the ruling, as the SCOTUS has clearly stated it applies to all contraceptives.

[Chrysia]

I keep seeing people bring this up as if it's an apples to apples comparison. It isn't. Blood Transfusions are medical necessity in most cases. An IUD and MAP's are not. Please stop using this example.

An IUD can be a medical necessity to someone for whom other birth control options are not viable for whatever reason, be they allergies or tolerance to those methods.

[Kapadons]

An IUD, to which Hobby lobby objects, performs the same function. It prevents fertilization.

MAP's I can kind of see an argument for. But I don't fully understand HL's stance on IUDs. Essentially it kills sperm. Same thing that several of the spermicides they DO still cover do.