SCOTUS Ruling: a set back for Obama Care

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

But a zygote cannot continue to live outside of the host. Is a skin cell "alive" because it as a full set of chromosomes? Am I guilty of manslaughter if I scrape off some of my skin in a biking accident? No. When does a life begin? It's open to debate, but I can assure you, it isn't defined as "a human cell with 46 chromosomes".

 

Straw man? No. Red herring? Nope. False equivalence? Not really. Bad science? Not at all.

 

 

It is a false equivalence because you incorrectly compared a zygote (genetically unique and complete). A skin cell is not genetically unique from the parent. A gamete cell is not genetically complete. Your science is bad for the same reason.

 

It is a red herring because the examples you bring up are irrelevant to my argument.

 

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).

 

 

So aborting twins is cool? They are not genetically unique.

 

Also, you saying my science is bad, doesn't make my science bad. Just a general FYI

[carlfense]

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).

I think that viability is my touchstone as well. So somewhere between 22 weeks and birth.

[Junior]

 

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).

I think that viability is my touchstone as well. So somewhere between 22 weeks and birth.

 

 

I agree with this as well. When the fetus can survive outside of the womb (even with dramatic medical intervention) then it is a living organism.

[TGHusker]

Those "sincerely held religious beliefs" seem to come and go as needed. How sincerely can Hobby Lobby's owners hold those beliefs when:

 

---

 

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

 

Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm's owners cite in their lawsuit.

 

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

 

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella.

 

---

 

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy

How can the arts and crafts chain espouse Christian values when it imports products from China?

 

According to a new annual report from ChinaAid (a Texas based organization that monitors religious freedom), persecution of Chinese Christians not only continues, but increased this past year. There were 134 cases of persecution reported; many people fear retaliation if they make claims of their abuse.

 

Forced abortion, although technically frowned upon by the government, is still a regular practice in China. Is the disruption of creation of life only relevant as a Christian when it's an American life?

 

---

 

 

 

"Sincerely held," indeed.

Knapp - no argument there - they should be consistent all of the way through.

[TGHusker]

 

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).

I think that viability is my touchstone as well. So somewhere between 22 weeks and birth.

 

Carl and Luke: Are you stating that life begins at Viability or the place where abortion should not be allowed or both?

[carlfense]

Are you stating that life begins at Viability or the place where abortion should not be allowed or both?

The point where abortion should be discouraged without some rare circumstances.

[knapplc]

I'm getting out while TGHusker and I agree on the Hobby Lobby questionable practices point. I'm not about to get involved in an abortion discussion!

[carlfense]

I'm getting out while TGHusker and I agree on the Hobby Lobby questionable practices point. I'm not about to get involved in an abortion discussion!

Good point.

 

[LukeinNE]

 

 

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).

I think that viability is my touchstone as well. So somewhere between 22 weeks and birth.

 

Carl and Luke: Are you stating that life begins at Viability or the place where abortion should not be allowed or both?

 

 

The same as Carl. On the subject of when a human life begins....I'm agnostic. And I don't support laws regulating questions that I don't know the answer to.

[carlfense]

Volokh's take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

[TGHusker]

 

I'm getting out while TGHusker and I agree on the Hobby Lobby questionable practices point. I'm not about to get involved in an abortion discussion!

Good point.

 

 

Love it!! Carl and Knapp - good challenging discussion - I appreciate hearing your insight.

[LukeinNE]

Volokh's take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

 

I enjoy Volokh.

 

I do take issue with:

when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners,

 

Because (at least to me) if you're going to incorporate in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporation, with the primary aim of making money, you should fall under public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws.

 

But this:

if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.

 

If it only applies to individuals or explicitly religious non-profits, that's fine. But the idea that if a for-profit corporation doesn't want to pay for this or that legally mandated thing, it can just shove the cost right back to the government, is wrong. I frankly dislike the contraception mandate (if you don't think your birth control is anyone's business, stop demanding that other people pay for it), but it is the law. Laws by definition aren't optional, and if you want to be protected by them, you have to follow them.

[tschu]

 

Volokh's take:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

 

I enjoy Volokh.

 

I do take issue with:

when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners,

 

Because (at least to me) if you're going to incorporate in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporation, with the primary aim of making money, you should fall under public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws.

 

But this:

if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.

 

If it only applies to individuals or explicitly religious non-profits, that's fine. But the idea that if a for-profit corporation doesn't want to pay for this or that legally mandated thing, it can just shove the cost right back to the government, is wrong. I frankly dislike the contraception mandate (if you don't think your birth control is anyone's business, stop demanding that other people pay for it), but it is the law. Laws by definition aren't optional, and if you want to be protected by them, you have to follow them.

 

 

Agree, especially this part "Because (at least to me) if you're going to incorporate in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporation, with the primary aim of making money, you should fall under public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws."

 

Incorporating or forming an LLC or whatever - that's all done to make your company a separate entity from yourself. So your person religious views should be separate from affecting the legal actions of your company, especially considering a large component of that company is the people that work there - people with their own religious views and their own rights. So pretending that your personal views trump your employees' personal views and using that in a way that negatively affects them is just terribly discriminatory and completely makes zero sense from a legal point of view. Ginsberg's dissent pretty much nailed it.

 

Again, it comes down to, do whatever you want unless it negatively affects other people.

 

I know that "slippery slope" is a sh**ty argument to use, but there's a reason that the SCOTUS was extremely careful in saying, ok Hobby Lobby you win, but this ONLY APPLIES TO companies of this size with this sort of ownership and only applies to contraception but only THIS form of contraction and ONLY on Mondays, Wednesdays, and every other Friday. They had to be very careful because now they're going to have to deal with a ton of other similar cases from other companies and it could end up being a nightmare. We'll see.

 

Point being, the decision makes zero sense, is obviously politically charged, sets a horrible precedent, and is pretty misogynist when it comes down to it. But yeah. Big win, conservatives, go you.

[carlfense]

I enjoy Volokh.

 

I do take issue with:

when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners,

Because (at least to me) if you're going to incorporate in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporation, with the primary aim of making money, you should fall under public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws.

 

I also enjoy Volokh and I agree.

[TGHusker]

With the encouragement of my more liberal leaning friends, I jumped on Vox and found this contribution to our discussion

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5860742/5-mistakes-liberals-make-about-corporate-personhood-and-hobby-lobby/in/5621013