Well, now...THERE'S a titillating career.

 

She said...

 

...never mind.

What is ironic about this particular ruling is the justification. It's not burdensome and therefore not a detriment to women's health because of AHCA. One of the justices (Alito?) referenced this in his ruling. He said that the women can simply have it paid for by the US govt since the AHCA created a mechanism for organizations like a Catholic church to avoid having to provide it against their wishes yet still have it available for their employees.

 

It would be extremely interesting to wonder how the ruling would have gone had the federal govt not made that concession.

On a lighter note, @SCOTUSBlog is a twitter account that writes/tweets about the Court.

 

It's amazing how many tweeters think this is the official account of the actual Court. They are getting killed today but are handling it with humor.

 

 

SCOTUSblog ‏@SCOTUSblog 17m

We prefer them as our editor & manager. RT @Allout1 I guess @SCOTUSblog wants women barefoot, pregnant and cooking dinner.

An interesting aspect of the ruling is that the company claimed the 4 named methods of contraception were abortifacients. Justice Alito mentioned in his ruling that science does not agree yet he still allowed the argument to be used and cited it as a reason to rule as he did.

An interesting aspect of the ruling is that the company claimed the 4 named methods of contraception were abortifacients. Justice Alito mentioned in his ruling that science does not agree yet he still allowed the argument to be used and cited it as a reason to rule as he did.

So good to know that the five Knights of Columbus on the high court dismiss science so readily. I can hardly wait for their rulings on climate change.

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

:lol2: As if the right are pacifists when it comes to politics.

 

Even Nixon did not unleash the IRS against ordinary people.

I'll just leave this here:

 

Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection - Forbes

 

The lesson in all this, of course, is it's OK to hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue when you really aren't. In fact, it's the American Way.

One would assume Hobby Lobby is still covering the cost of Viagra for men?

 

And they are also covering the cost of 14 FDA approved contraceptives.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

And they are also covering the cost of 14 FDA approved contraceptives.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

This involves more than what Hobby Lobby does or does not offer. The ruling also paves the way for approximately 50 other companies who have sued for similar exemptions, including some that oppose all contraceptives.

And they are also covering the cost of 14 FDA approved contraceptives.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

And were well before ACA. Unlike the vast majority of corporations - non-profit, closely held or public.

 

They may be Christian, but they are not Catholic....:lol2:

 

Can we stop demonizing the actual company now?

The lesson in all this, of course, is it's OK to hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue when you really aren't. In fact, it's the American Way.

 

If you understood laws regarding EMPLOYEE retirement plans you would realize how wrong you are, the employer does not direct investments. Nice try at at an unfair shot though but that's what happens when you rely on Mother Jones for your investment knowledge.

I'll just leave this here:

 

Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection - Forbes

 

Please explain to us it's relevance to this conversation.

This involves more than what Hobby Lobby does or does not offer. The ruling also paves the way for approximately 50 other companies who have sued for similar exemptions' date=' including some that oppose all contraceptives.[/quote'] If thats an issue then don't work there. My company plan doesn't pay for the full cost of my glasses. I'm sure other places do. If I want to work for someone that pays 100% of the cost of my glasses I change jobs. Make it known upfront what will and won't be covered and let potential employees use that in their decision making process.

If you understood laws regarding EMPLOYEE retirement plans you would realize how wrong you are, the employer does not direct investments. Nice try at at an unfair shot though but that's what happens when you rely on Mother Jones for your investment knowledge.

 

You would know a lot more in that field than I. However I do recall the SBC instructing its Annuity Company, Guidestone, to devest any holdings in such companies that violated ethics and issues deemed by SBC meetings. To my knowledge Guidestone did that. Don't know if it's applicable to this'd not.