Hmm You want me to pay for what?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobby-case-myths-debunked wrote:
3. “Anyway, those forms of contraception are actually abortifacient.” The baseline question here is whether potentially and intentionally preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg constitutes abortion. That’s not the medical definition of abortion, which is ending a pregnancy. But let’s say your sincerely held belief is that interfering with the implantation of a fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion, as it is for the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood owners. There is very little evidence showing that the objected-to methods – two forms of intrauterine devices and two forms of emergency contraception – even work that way, with the exception of the copper IUD.

There are two kinds of emergency contraception on the market: an over-the-counter one generally known as Plan B and a prescription-only one known as Ella. According to the amicus brief filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and several other medical associations, “there is no scientific evidence that emergency contraceptives available in the United States and approved by the FDA affect an existing pregnancy.” Instead, they prevent ovulation, so there is no egg to fertilize. That includes the longer-acting Ella: “There is no evidence that [Ella] affects implantation.”

One form of the IUD, known on the market at the Mirena, includes hormones that prevent ovulation. The other, preferred by women who experience side effects from artificial hormones, doesn’t. “When used as emergency contraception” – i.e., after unprotected sexual activity – “the [non-hormonal IUD] could also act to prevent implantation,” according to the amicus.

If you’re keeping count, that’s one out of four that maybe does what the plaintiffs say it does, in the rare instances it’s inserted after unprotected sex – and that’s still not the medical definition of abortion.

PeterZ wrote:As I recall the Hobby Lobby complaint is not so much about paying for birthcontrol pills but 4 separate abortifacients. Hobby Lobby is not contesing paying for birthcontrol pills that prevent pregnancy by preventing an ovum from becomming fertilized. They are contesting paying for abortifacients that could induce fertilized ova aborted from the womb. Requiring someone to directly support what he/she considers murder is pretty tough. Not indirect tax dollars here but directly funding the objectionable practice.

http://theweek.com/article/index/259042/the-hobby-lobby-case-is-all-about-power-not-religious-liberty

Eyal wrote:I doubt that knowing that any ensuing lung cancer/cirhosis will be treated at taxpayer expense will be what encourages smoking/drinking.

More seriously, it's already settled that by being part of a state, your contribution may be used on things that you may consider to be immoral. A pacifist's taxes contribute to the military as much as a non-pacifist's.

Furthermore, I fail to see why this ruling is limited to contraception. The same logic would seem to imply that a corporation owned by a Jehovah's Witness should not pay for blood transfusions, or that one owned by a follower of Christian Science should not pay for any medical care.

PeterZ wrote:Donnachaidh,

Not going to argue about abortion. Just posted that the issue in the Hobby Lobby case was NOT based on contraception but about what Hobby Lobby perceived as abortion. I understand you are ticked. You understand that I am not. let's leave it there, eh?

namelessfly wrote:What I am angry about is the fact that Obama and the House Democrats lacked the integrity to simply offer a bill that established nationalized healthcare rather than this abortion of mandated health insurance from "private" companies. I lost the insurance that I's had for years and was unable to secure new insurance through the dysfunctional National and State Obamacare exchanges.

This will get very interesting when Obama's apparently intentional effort to use the illegal immigrants that have been lured to cross the border by the promise of amnesty to spread disease. If we get a serious plague the kills tens of millions ofAmericans, I will think of it as evolution in action.

BTW, why don't the just install a diving board rather than a safety net on the Golden Gate Bridge?