Birth Control Question

[TitanTiger 21,067]

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, I pretty much agree with this line of thinking:

Where once the religious right sought to inject a unified ideology of traditionalist Judeo-Christianity into the nation's politics, now it seeks merely to protect itself against a newly aggressive form of secular social liberalism.

In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy

http://www.dailykos....ar-guard-action

Can't say I disagree. Though the reason for that "grinding" is more what I posted before...that modern liberals seem to have lost the capacity to put themselves in the place of another and see the world through their eyes. They're aggressive alright.

Actually, the research indicates just the opposite. Liberals are inherently more empathetic than conservatives. (See Haidt, "The Righteous Mind")

Actually, not, as was mentioned in my earlier post about Haidt's points:

Haidt found that in general, the moral mind of liberals rests on two of the five bases: Harm and Fairness. The moral mind of conservatives rests on these two bases, but also the other three: Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Because of this, Haidt says, liberals have a much harder time understanding conservatives than vice versa.

and:

One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

If it is the case that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, why is that? Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

You're misreading Haidt.

[RunInRed 18,113]

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, I pretty much agree with this line of thinking:

Where once the religious right sought to inject a unified ideology of traditionalist Judeo-Christianity into the nation's politics, now it seeks merely to protect itself against a newly aggressive form of secular social liberalism.

In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy

http://www.dailykos....ar-guard-action

Can't say I disagree. Though the reason for that "grinding" is more what I posted before...that modern liberals seem to have lost the capacity to put themselves in the place of another and see the world through their eyes. They're aggressive alright.

And I would agree there's a certain irony to that ...

[DKW 86 7,866]

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, I pretty much agree with this line of thinking:

Where once the religious right sought to inject a unified ideology of traditionalist Judeo-Christianity into the nation's politics, now it seeks merely to protect itself against a newly aggressive form of secular social liberalism.

In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy

http://www.dailykos....ar-guard-action

Can't say I disagree. Though the reason for that "grinding" is more what I posted before...that modern liberals seem to have lost the capacity to put themselves in the place of another and see the world through their eyes. They're aggressive alright.

Actually, the research indicates just the opposite. Liberals are inherently more empathetic than conservatives. (See Haidt, "The Righteous Mind")

Crash and Burn on this one. Titan had already linked a Haidt TED that said just the opposite.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?] …"

Already does. Many religious groups refuse medical care everyday. Where have you been?

Yup. You actually see quite a few court cases involving the administration of health care and it breaking religious beliefs. Or loved ones overriding ones religious beliefs in the decision making process and that ends up in courts.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?] …"

Already does. Many religious groups refuse medical care everyday. Where have you been?

Yup. You actually see quite a few court cases involving the administration of health care and it breaking religious beliefs. Or loved ones overriding ones religious beliefs in the decision making process and that ends up in courts.

This was presented in the context of this thread .

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Another good explanation as to why the SCOTUS decision was reasonable:

Yesterday, on its final day of the 2013-14 term, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision for Hobby Lobby and its owners, the Green Family, forbidding the government from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for the provision of abortion-inducing drugs or devices for their employees pursuant to regulations enacted by the Department of Health and Human Services in implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.”

The HHS regulations mandated coverage for some twenty types of contraceptives. Hobby Lobby and the Greens did not object to providing coverage for sixteen of these. They objected, on grounds of conscience, to providing the four that can or might cause the death of a developing child in the early embryonic stage, if conception has occurred. As devout evangelical Christians, they argued that the imposition of a requirement that they provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs or devices violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

This piece of federal legislation, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 after being passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, provides for conduct exemptions to laws of general applicability where such laws substantially burden religious practice or belief, unless the government can meet the high burden of demonstrating that a legal imposition is supported by a compelling governmental interest—the highest standard known to our law—and represents the least restrictive means of protecting or advancing that interest.

Hobby Lobby and the Greens, represented by attorneys from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (full disclosure: I am a member of its board of directors and executive committee), argued that the abortifacient mandates (1) substantially burden the practice of their faith; (2) are not supported by a compelling interest; and (3) do not represent the least restrictive means of pursuing the government’s objective of supplying these products to women. The Obama administration contested these claims and denied that RFRA protections apply at all to for-profit businesses (as opposed to religious organizations).

The decision’s most important feature is its rejection of that contention. The five justices in the majority—Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy—explicitly reject it, thus establishing as a matter of law the proposition that RFRA protections can apply to for-profit businesses, and do apply to closely held corporations. It leaves open the question, which is probably purely theoretical, whether RFRA protections apply to large, publicly traded companies. Two of the four dissenting justices—Breyer and Kagan—decline to reach or opine on the question of whether RFRA protects for-profit businesses—pointedly refusing to join this aspect of the dissent filed by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor who, alone, contend that for-profit businesses do not enjoy RFRA protections.

Friends of First Things will not be able to resist the feeling that the late Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of this journal and the leader of the opposition to the idea that religion is a purely “private” activity that has no legitimate role in the public square, is smiling down from heaven. Yesterday was Fr. Neuhaus’s big day. The Court ruled that the Greens did not forfeit their rights to run their business in line with their conscientious religious beliefs merely by choosing the corporate form.

Just as the for-profit company known as the New York Times enjoys the right to freedom of the press under the First Amendment, so Hobby Lobby enjoys the right to religious freedom protected by RFRA. Protection for religious liberty doesn’t stop where commerce begins. As Neuhaus tirelessly insisted, our religious lives cannot be restricted to what we do in our homes before meals or on our knees at bedtime, or to our prayers and liturgies in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. Religious faith motivates, or can motivate, our convictions and actions in the exercise of our rights and responsibilities as citizens, in our philanthropic and charitable activities, and in the conduct of our businesses and professions.

Once the Court establishes the principle that RFRA covers people of faith operating as corporations, just as it covers people doing business as sole proprietors—and protects them in their business lives just as it does in other spheres—the Court has no difficulty perceiving that the abortifacient mandates substantially burden the Greens’ freedom of religion and that, however one characterizes the governmental interest the mandates are meant to be advancing, there is no way plausibly to claim that they represent the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. Obviously, the government could, for example, provide women with abortion drugs or devices itself. And there may be other ways of providing those products without conscripting Hobby Lobby and the Greens into the process, thus forcing them to violate their consciences, pay crushing fines, or push their employees onto the state healthcare exchanges.

But what about the question of how to characterize the governmental interest? Being a good judicial craftsman, Justice Alito adheres firmly to the canon of legal interpretation that counsels against reaching an issue that need not be resolved in order to dispose of the case at hand. So, having determined that the abortifacient mandates flunk the “least restrictive means” test, he declined to address the question of whether providing abortifacients as part of employer-provided insurance plans constitutes a compelling interest.

It isn’t hard to see, however, that it couldn’t possibly constitute such an interest. Countless employers of fewer than fifty full-time workers are relieved of the requirement to provide insurance to their employees under the ACA altogether, and many millions of other employees are in “grandfathered” plans unaffected by this HHS mandate. They are not required to provide coverage for contraceptives or abortifacients. For the whole of history, before Obamacare was signed into law only four years ago, no company in the United States was required to provide coverage for these products. So the Obama administration is hardly in a position to say that the provision of abortion drugs or devices, or coverage including them, constitutes a compelling governmental interest. Indeed, one wonders how the government’s attorneys could make that claim with a straight face.

What does today’s ruling portend for the other cases coming down the line concerning the mandates, including those for religious non-profit entities to whom the Obama administration has offered an “accommodation” that they, rightly in my view, regard as phony? Some language in Justice Alito’s opinion, and especially some language in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s short concurring opinion, is causing a bit of anxiety for religious freedom advocates. The Becket Fund explains the “accommodation” and what is fallacious about it:

Under this, an objecting organization will notify its insurer or plan administrator, which will make payments to employees for the mandated contraceptive services. The rule insists these payments are not “benefits” and are separate from the organization’s health plan. Nonetheless, the accommodation means that employees are guaranteed payments for objectionable services, specifically because they are covered under the organization’s plan. Furthermore, the accommodation requires a self-insured organization to “designate” its plan administrator as an agent who will make or arrange for payments for the mandated services. This “accommodation” fails to solve the moral problem created by the mandate for many religious organizations.

My own judgment is that Alito’s words needn’t and shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting that he thinks the “accommodation” satisfies RFRA concerns about the religious freedom of Catholic and Evangelical colleges and other institutions that have filed lawsuits to prevent imposition on them of the contraception and/or abortifacient mandates. As I said, Alito is a good judicial craftsman. He doesn’t address issues that needn’t be resolved in order to dispose of the case at hand. It is a mistake to read him as signaling a favorable attitude towards the “accommodation.”

Kennedy, not uncharacteristically, is harder to read. I can’t say with confidence that he is not signaling a friendly attitude towards the “accommodation.” At the same time, I cannot say that he seems to have settled his mind on the question. When one of the cases presenting the issue makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be incumbent on the lawyers challenging the imposition of the mandates to do a good job of explaining how, despite the “accommodation,” they implicate the religious employer in the provision of contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of their conscientious opposition to providing these products.

In the mean time, the cases filed by non-profit institutions like Colorado Christian College and the University of Notre Dame, and by the Catholic television network EWTN and the redoubtable Little Sisters of the Poor, will work their way through the system—mostly winning in the lower federal courts. Notre Dame Law School professor Gerard Bradley, one of our nation’s most astute commentators on religious liberty issues, has noted that these cases are of two kinds: (1) those involving claimants who self-insure; and (2) those involving claimants who purchase insurance from companies. Professor Bradley believes that today’s decision should inspire a great deal of confidence for claimants in the first category. The situation for those in the second, considered in light of what Justice Kennedy says in his concurring opinion, is more uncertain. What is certain is that Kennedy’s vote will decide the cases that consider the “accommodation.” Lawyers on the competing sides can each count on four votes being with them and four against. So lawyers on both sides will be directing their arguments to Kennedy. As is often the case, he is The Decider.

All the while, politics will happen. Hillary Clinton, Sandra Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, and others are already warning that the Supreme Court has joined the alleged “war on women.” Left-wing pressure groups will whip their base into a frenzy for electoral and fund-raising reasons. Brandishing Justice Ginsburg’s overwrought dissenting opinion, they will compare the justices in the Hobby Lobby majority to leaders of the Taliban. Democrats in Congress, egged on by the Daily Kos, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest, will propose reversing the Hobby Lobby decision by amending RFRA or repealing it altogether.

Friends of religious freedom must respond swiftly and strongly to the claims and political machinations of their adversaries. We must wield the sword of truth against the falsehoods and gross exaggerations that will become the currency of the other side’s attacks. Without resorting to their tactics, we must match their intensity and determination. Key elements of our religious freedom hang in the balance.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and author, most recently, of Conscience and Its Enemies (ISI).

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/06/what-hobby-lobby-means

You haven't really addressed the merits of my argument that individuals with rights and responsibilities CHOOSE to incorporate to lessen their responsibilities-- WHY is it appropriate that they retain ALL the rights of an individual while avoiding responsibility ? What is conservative about that? And I'm not talking about business/commerce. I'm not disputing an individual 's right to practice their religious belief as HL requested . Deal with that actual principle instead of merely defending the outcome consistent with your ideology .

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

There still hasn't been an aswer to my original question, either.

What was it?

What makes BC so much more of an "essential benefit" that it must be the only Rx mandated by ACA to be offered for free?

I said because it is different than all things in the fact that it actually results in the creation of a life. A life that is then at no fault of its own dependent on others or dependent upon society, at least until a certain age.

The ACA also provides for aspirin as a preventive method in cardiovascular disease for men and women upon certain ages. Which from the numbers put into this thread cost about the same as birth control depending upon brand.

I would say, like aspirin, it falls under the category of preventive health which is a focus of the ACA.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

If the reason for providing BC is to reduce the number of unwanted children, why don't we close the border and reduce the thousands coming in?

Cause the United States exploits them for labor. There are corporations that send people across the border to recruit them and then even help them come across.

Alabama example of how trading immigrant labor for Alabama citizins failed miserably due to Alabama's immigration laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/after-alabama-immigration-law-few-americans-taking-immigrants-work_n_1023635.html

[TitanTiger 21,067]

You haven't really addressed the merits of my argument that individuals with rights and responsibilities CHOOSE to incorporate to lessen their responsibilities-- WHY is it appropriate that they retain ALL the rights of an individual while avoiding responsibility ? What is conservative about that? And I'm not talking about business/commerce. I'm not disputing an individual 's right to practice their religious belief as HL requested . Deal with that actual principle instead of merely defending the outcome consistent with your ideology .

\

I sort of did. There is nothing that necessitates that lessening responsibilities in some areas means that you lose certain rights in others, particularly our most critical ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights. "You have protection in business bankruptcies from your personal assets...therefore you (owner) don't have an free exercise of religion rights." What in logic or legal terms makes those two things inextricably connected.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

This issue is much bigger than birth control, folks.

Just as the mandate represents.

Next will be

"religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?] …"

Already does. Many religious groups refuse medical care everyday. Where have you been?

Yup. You actually see quite a few court cases involving the administration of health care and it breaking religious beliefs. Or loved ones overriding ones religious beliefs in the decision making process and that ends up in courts.

This was presented in the context of this thread .

Hadn't gotten to yet at the time I don't think when I posted that. I'm too lazy to read all and then go back and post.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

If the reason for providing BC is to reduce the number of unwanted children, why don't we close the border and reduce the thousands coming in?

Cause the United States exploits them for labor. There are corporations that send people across the border to recruit them and then even help them come across.

Alabama example of how trading immigrant labor for Alabama citizins failed miserably due to Alabama's immigration laws.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1023635.html

Good point. I wonder why you never hear of anyone being prosecuted for employing illegals? Seems like that would be a big part of any solution to the problem.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

You haven't really addressed the merits of my argument that individuals with rights and responsibilities CHOOSE to incorporate to lessen their responsibilities-- WHY is it appropriate that they retain ALL the rights of an individual while avoiding responsibility ? What is conservative about that? And I'm not talking about business/commerce. I'm not disputing an individual 's right to practice their religious belief as HL requested . Deal with that actual principle instead of merely defending the outcome consistent with your ideology .

\

I sort of did. There is nothing that necessitates that lessening responsibilities in some areas means that you lose certain rights in others, particularly our most critical ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights. "You have protection in business bankruptcies from your personal assets...therefore you (owner) don't have an free exercise of religion rights." What in logic or legal terms makes those two things inextricably connected.

You misstate it. You have religious rights, your corporation is a distinct entity-- that's a fundamental point:

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem

[TitanTiger 21,067]

You haven't really addressed the merits of my argument that individuals with rights and responsibilities CHOOSE to incorporate to lessen their responsibilities-- WHY is it appropriate that they retain ALL the rights of an individual while avoiding responsibility ? What is conservative about that? And I'm not talking about business/commerce. I'm not disputing an individual 's right to practice their religious belief as HL requested . Deal with that actual principle instead of merely defending the outcome consistent with your ideology .

\

I sort of did. There is nothing that necessitates that lessening responsibilities in some areas means that you lose certain rights in others, particularly our most critical ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights. "You have protection in business bankruptcies from your personal assets...therefore you (owner) don't have an free exercise of religion rights." What in logic or legal terms makes those two things inextricably connected.

You misstate it. You have religious rights, your corporation is a distinct entity-- that's a fundamental point:

http://m.motherjones...s-other-problem

But that is what is at issue here...the SCOTUS is saying there is no legally significant difference - as it pertains to the First Amendment - between a sole-proprietorship and a closely-held private corporation. I know what your opinion is, but the justices don't agree that because you have some other benefits of incorporating that means you automatically relinquish other rights.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

You haven't really addressed the merits of my argument that individuals with rights and responsibilities CHOOSE to incorporate to lessen their responsibilities-- WHY is it appropriate that they retain ALL the rights of an individual while avoiding responsibility ? What is conservative about that? And I'm not talking about business/commerce. I'm not disputing an individual 's right to practice their religious belief as HL requested . Deal with that actual principle instead of merely defending the outcome consistent with your ideology .

\

I sort of did. There is nothing that necessitates that lessening responsibilities in some areas means that you lose certain rights in others, particularly our most critical ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights. "You have protection in business bankruptcies from your personal assets...therefore you (owner) don't have an free exercise of religion rights." What in logic or legal terms makes those two things inextricably connected.

You misstate it. You have religious rights, your corporation is a distinct entity-- that's a fundamental point:

http://m.motherjones...s-other-problem

But that is what is at issue here...the SCOTUS is saying there is no legally significant difference - as it pertains to the First Amendment - between a sole-proprietorship and a closely-held private corporation. I know what your opinion is, but the justices don't agree that because you have some other benefits of incorporating that means you automatically relinquish other rights.

These justices are highly ideological and not big on principle. This is a fundamental legal concept they have breached. It exists for many sound reasons. It gets them where they want to be in this one case. Unfortunately the Court sets precedents whether they like it or not. They grossly distorted the law . You're fine with it because it preserves your top principle-- on that, you are at least consistent.

[TitanTiger 21,067]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The President overreached. He had the ability to completely avoid this conflict, but lacked the concern for those it affected. He's a textbook example of what Haidt pointed out about certain liberals that find themselves unable to see things from any point of view other than their own. He decided that he didn't really need to worry about people's religious beliefs. The non-existent right to facilitate the sex life one wants was more important that that trivial stuff...which is why we also have Catholic charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor and non-profits like EWTN having to fight this order off.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Right on Titan but your words fall on ears that don't want to believe this is the same SCOTUS that they had orgasms over just a short time ago.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The top principles you display here are unyielding opposition to what you consider to be abortion and religious freedom for those you consider to be Christian. Fair enough.

The Supreme Court is supposed to adhere to a broad range of legal principles, Constitutional and otherwise. The legal system relies on this. The entire concept of a corporation is that it is a unique entity entirely distinct from the individual(s) that form it-- can you point to another case that conflates the two ?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Can you point to another case where a sitting POTUS issued an order to kill an American citizen?

[TitanTiger 21,067]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The top principles you display here are unyielding opposition to what you consider to be abortion and religious freedom for those you consider to be Christian. Fair enough.

As if the only ones that have a problem with abortion are Christians, or even religious for that matter. Right.

The Supreme Court is supposed to adhere to a broad range of legal principles, Constitutional and otherwise. The legal system relies on this. The entire concept of a corporation is that it is a unique entity entirely distinct from the individual(s) that form it-- can you point to another case that conflates the two ?

I don't know that I can. I'm not all that up on tracking down prior cases. Then again, prior to Roe v. Wade you couldn't point to a case that inferred a right to privacy that overrode a human right to live either. Precedent happens.

EDITED TO ADD:

Perhaps this might shed some light on the idea:

As with most legal thinking, corporate personhood has evolved considerably over time. An 1819 decision,Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, first got the ball rolling by holding that corporations have the right to enter into contract agreements with the same protections as individual people.

But the Dartmouth case had more to do with corporate rights than personhood. It wasn't until 1886, in a little-known case, that the Supreme Court said corporations were granted some of the same protections under the 14th Amendment (which famously gave us the much-litigated due process clause) afforded to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which found railroad tycoons, who were at the zenith of their power during the Gilded Age, fitfully protesting taxes levied by California.

http://www.nationalj...ctrine-20140701

Seems as though this has been done before to some degree.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The top principles you display here are unyielding opposition to what you consider to be abortion and religious freedom for those you consider to be Christian. Fair enough.

As if the only ones that have a problem with abortion are Christians, or even religious for that matter. Right.

Not sure what you are responding to.

[TitanTiger 21,067]

I'll also mention that this concept of the corporation having in some sense "personhood" didn't even get created here in the US:

This concept isn't new. In ancient Roman law, a corporation was considered a juristic person: a single, nonhuman entity that legally represented a group of many people [source: Sherman]. The idea makes sense; after all, a corporation is made up of people's financial contributions.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person.htm

As I mentioned before, it's a tricky balance. I think they managed to do that correctly here. They protected the rights of people of faith while not taking away any rights from anyone else. The same contraceptives are still available and the government has a less restrictive means to provide it to those who want it. But it doesn't mean you're always going to have a perfect ruling because the rights compete and the details matter. There simply isn't a blanket, easy, applies to any and every situation ruling to be had.

[TitanTiger 21,067]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The top principles you display here are unyielding opposition to what you consider to be abortion and religious freedom for those you consider to be Christian. Fair enough.

As if the only ones that have a problem with abortion are Christians, or even religious for that matter. Right.

Not sure what you are responding to.

Your notion of what my top principle is. It is much larger than just what concerns abortion or what concerns Christians.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The top principles you display here are unyielding opposition to what you consider to be abortion and religious freedom for those you consider to be Christian. Fair enough.

As if the only ones that have a problem with abortion are Christians, or even religious for that matter. Right.

Not sure what you are responding to.

Your notion of what my top principle is. It is much larger than just what concerns abortion or what concerns Christians.

I said what I saw as the top principles you display here. Beyond that, I don't pretend to know what's inside your head.

[TitanTiger 21,067]

Ok, whatever. It's pointless to banter about this particular little side note any further.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Salon.com wrote today that Ginsburg lost the debate by trying to say that corporations as artificial legal entities cant be treated as persons. She then said that church (artificial legal entities) can be treated as persons. Salon.com pretty much said she lost the debate at that moment. If one artificial legal entity can be treated as a person then all can be treated as persons. They concluded that the debate was therefore over.