Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US

    Tougher Abortion Laws Key to Ending Western Drought

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Steerpike, Jun 12, 2015.

  2. Stacy C
    Offline

    Stacy C Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
    Didn't know the morons at the Westboro Baptist Church had a California congregation.
     
  3. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It would seem Ms Grove is on a mission.

    SHANNON GROVE INTRODUCES BILL TO RESTORE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ON CAMPUS

    Grove's religious exemption [in who you rent to] just discrimination

    Shannon Grove stands up to lawless state health officials who are requiring churches to pay for elective-abortion

    California bill compels abortion notice at pregnancy centers
    It might look like Grove contradicts herself urging rejection of the bill, but in reality her side of the isle is using claims about defending free speech to allow pro-life clinics to deceive patients seeking abortions.
    And when it comes to mandatory vaccinations in the state with a measles outbreak and thousands of cases of pertussis including more than 30 resulting fatalities:
    California to tighten vaccine law despite outcry over parental rights

     
  4. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    Yeah, we've got some nutjobs on the right in California, but they don't have enough authority to do a hell of a lot at the State level (as an aside, I agree regarding churches not having to provide abortion coverage if they don't want to, but I thought that exemption was already there).

    In short, she's a loon, but has a small contingent of vocal supporters.
     
  5. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Except it's not churches, it's employers and either you are in the camp that your employer can select your health insurance coverage for you or you're in the it's none of their business camp.

    Not to start a whole different debate but I found that whole argument specious when HobbyLobby had no issue investing pension funds in abortion pill manufacturers, but suddenly got religion when it came to opposing the ACA. Had it been a believably sincere issue, I would have had more empathy. But when one uses religion as an excuse to discriminate against gays, protest against mandatory health insurance laws, and block funding of Planned Parenthood, it looks like a dishonest proclamation of religious freedom.
     
  6. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    The exemptions should be limited to entities that are primarily religious in nature.

    As for the pension plan, I don't think most companies hand pick or probably even know what companies their 401Ks or pensions are investing in. Usually they just go with a fund that an investment group handles, right?
     
    BrianIff likes this.
  7. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    That excuse was made by HobbyLobby defenders and it was shown to be false as well. It would have been very simple for them to divest and unless things changed later, they didn't, even when it was brought to their attention.

    And how is that any different from getting into the minutia of what an employee's health insurance coverage entailed? If one pays the employee does on get to say what you spend your money on? HobbyLobby was paying employees in the form of an insurance policy, they weren't the insurer.

    What if an employee wanted their pension funds to be free of things that affronted their religious views? Should that be protected under the law as well? Why is the employer being given greater religious freedom than the employees?

    Maybe Ms Grove should look into a legislative remedy for that? :p
     
  8. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    http://www.snopes.com/info/news/hobbylobby.asp

    That's what Snopes says about Hobby Lobby.

    I don't think the employee situation is quite analogous. The employee doesn't have to participate in the company plan at all if they don't want to. Also, they don't have to work for any given employer.
     
  9. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    5,499
    The exemptions should be eliminated by the United States finally getting a grip and going with single payer, so that controlling employers can't micromanage their employees' moral decisions.

    But until that happens, every last exemption should be struck down. If that means that moral micromanagers can't hire employees, so be it. They can go out of business.
     
  10. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    That article doesn't contradict anything I said.
    How does the employee having retirement fund options differ from the employee having birth control options?

    As for the managers not being aware, they were made aware after the MJ article. Did they make any changes to the pension plan options? Why did they look at the details of the health insurance coverage and not the details of the pension fund investments?

    In other words the employer was given protections under the law the employee was not afforded. The employer is the owner, the employee the fodder with no rights.

    Now if the same legislators weren't gloating over union busting and taking away worker's rights to collectively bargain, the laws might not seem so unevenly weighted in favor of the owner class.
     
  11. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    I don't see single payer happening any time soon, or a Constitutional amendment that would allow the government to eliminate exemptions.
     
  12. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    5,499
    It shouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. I'm hoping that this will be one of those wrong calls by the Supreme Court that a later Supreme Court fixes or narrows into irrelevancy. Unfortunately, that doesn't do us any good right now.
     
  13. Link the Writer
    Online

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,218
    Likes Received:
    4,226
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    I'm just having a hard time trying to figure out how 'abortion laws'='rain'. For God's sake, mostly everything west of the Rockies is just desert/tundra landscape. Of course there's going to be drought. Having tighter abortion laws will not do anything but make the lives of pregnant women who don't want babies very difficult.
     
  14. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    My personal opinion is that it requires one. The Hobby Lobby case for a private employer is wrong, but removing an exemption for actual religious institutions would be problematic under decades of First Amendment law, in my view. I'm fine with that - it makes sense given the balance our system tries to strike. But allowing a primarily secular, commercial enterprise to be exempt is the wrong place to strike that balance.
     
  15. Stacy C
    Offline

    Stacy C Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
    Mine, too. Ruling on constitutionality is all the Supreme Court does, so it appears they agree with us. I can see both sides of the HL case, but agree with the Court's decision, mainly because HL is a large company, but shares are closely held, so the owners shouldn't give up their First Amendment rights. The HL decision protects the plaintiff's (and our) constitutional rights in the same way the decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC does.
     
  16. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    5,499
    But Hobby Lobby is not a church. I wouldn't give the exemption even to a church, but I do see a church as somewhat different in this area. Giving it to a business is a very different thing. Will we now exempt businesses with religious owners from OSHA or restaurant sanitation or fire code rules? Or is it just women's reproductive choices that are such a little unimportant thing that we can wipe them away?

    Edited to add: And, by the way, remember that Hobby Lobby isn't about abortion but about contraception.
     
  17. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    In my opinion, it wasn't about either, it was about challenging the ACA government mandate. It ended up being little more than symbolic. But that symbolism has contributed to a wave of 'religious freedom' legislation to do just what you say, skirting anti-discrimination laws under the guise of religious beliefs.

    And just to bring this back to the OP, a lot of legislation Ms Grove is pushing has the same theme, if you don't like a law, claim religious freedom allows you to ignore it.
     
  18. Stacy C
    Offline

    Stacy C Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
    As far as I know, it was about after-the-fact contraception, which is, of course, abortion.

    As I said, I can see both sides of the case, but I'll always come down on the side of expanding constitutional rights, rather than restricting them.

    It's hard to think of a possible religious objection to fire codes, but I think the point you're making is a valid one. The Supreme Court exists to mediate conflicts between the rights of one group against those of another.
     
  19. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    People tend to focus on the aspect of the Constitution they want to, and when it comes to the religion clauses people are particularly polarized and pretty much want to ignore the part that doesn't jive with their personal views.

    Think of this: many of the Constitutional protections we enjoy are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Framers did, however, mention some specific ones in the Bill of Rights, and in the very first amendment (the first of the Bill of Rights) the very first thing they mention are the two religion clauses. That should tell you something about how important both the establishment clause AND the free expression clause were considered. Those were followed by freedom of speech and the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government to address grievances.

    People who don't like the idea that religion has a special protected status in our society focus on the establishment clause, and in fact only on one side of it, which is the inability of the state to establish a religion (ignoring the fact that the very same clause also prevents "excessive entanglement" between government and religion via regulation). They like to ignore the free exercise clause entirely.

    People who are religious zealots love the free exercise clause (at least for their own religion), they love the establishment clause to the extent it keeps government from interfering with churches, but they ignore the establishment clause when they decide they want to legislate their religious beliefs onto everyone else.

    In any event, failing to have an exception for the an actual religious institution, which would require regulation of those institutions, possible auditing for compliance, and penalties, is something that would be prohibited by a long line of establishment clause cases that say the government can't be that "entangled" in the operations of a religious institution.

    Of course, at the Founding this was only the Federal Government we were talking about. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the State governments, who could do whatever they wanted. But now the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.
     
  20. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It's not about religious people's rights, it's about the rights of two individuals (or groups) that conflict with each other.

    I had this issue as a landlord. Given how our culture views something we own, it creates an emotional conflict when a renter has rights in the house you own. It's one thing that a landlord can't just walk in on people, but you also can't get them out all that easily when they don't pay the rent. One time my renters took the garage door off and built a wall out of old windows turning the garage into an art studio. They never bothered to ask permission.

    But the fact of the matter is, people need certain rights, even when it involves something someone else owns. You own the rental property, you have to accept that renters have rights that might conflict with what you want to happen to your property.

    The same applies to an employer, be it a private business or a publicly held one. Employees have certain rights. Employers have to accept that. And when it comes to judicial declarations of how those rights should be divvied up, and when you see the varying results one gets when stacking the court with a right wing judiciary or a progressive minded liberal judiciary, it's not a perfect matter of an absolute right way to interpret the Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2015
  21. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,305
    Location:
    California, US
    Hobby Lobby is one thing - wrong decision by the court.

    But when you're talking about an actual religious institution, a church, then the balance should go the other way. If you don't agree with the tenets of the church, you shouldn't work for the church.
     
  22. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    That makes sense. What irked me about HobbyLobby was the deceit I felt the owners were using.

    The nuns though, that don't want to sign the paper so someone else can provide the birth control for the employees, that goes a bit too far in my opinion. Because now you are talking about churches that own businesses. Hospitals owned by the Catholic Church have multiple issues re the human rights of the patients and the employees, especially when they buy up all the existing hospitals in an area limiting patient options. We are experiencing a problem with that here in WA state with hospital consolidation. Planned Parenthood's access to laboratory services in Bellingham was threatened because of a hospital merger.

    Fears of a Catholic monopoly dominate talk of hospital mergers
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page