10
   

Why Women Aren't People (But Corporations Are)

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 09:22 am
Earlier today, five men agreed that closely held corporations with anti-birth control religious beliefs cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees. Corporations are people, my friend. Women? Not so much.

The decision to declare women Unpeople was a narrow one; the five men agreed that corporations (people) shouldn't be able to use Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby to justify discriminating against anyone except women (lesser people-ish entities), and won't be able to use it to deny other health care besides contraception. The same religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act that applies to nonprofit organizations also applies to for-profit companies controlled by a small group of people who think birth control is black magic. This ruling applies to whore pills only. Not to blood transfusions, AIDS retrovirals, vaccines, treating infections caused by getting a SATAN RULES tattoo with an infected needle at an unsafe tattoo parlor, antibiotics purchased to fight off a nasty case of the clap caught while raw dogging a stranger in a bar bathroom. Just birth control. No matter why a woman needs it.

The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. The kind of religious beliefs that cite as justification for their beliefs a series of religious texts written before Western Medicine as we know it existed.

If corporations are people then why can't I punch one in the ******* face?

Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women's reproductive health care is less important than a woman's boss's superstition-based prudery and moral trepidation about fornication for female pleasure. They ruled that it doesn't matter if birth control actually causes abortions; it only matters if business owners sincerely believe that birth control causes abortions. They ruled that it's okay for a corporate person to discriminate against a female semi-person and dictate that she not spend her compensation on stuff that might possibly be enabling sex without consequences, if they believe that God thinks they should. Female semi-persons who work for these company-persons can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, say the five men of the Supreme Court, the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control, because that objection would indirectly sanction their whoreployees' birth control by admitting that they weren't getting it through work. So we've got that legal clusterfuck to look forward to, now).

The five men of the Supreme Court made pains to specify that this only applies to bosses who specifically object to women who want to use a portion of their compensation to obtain a pharmaceutical that will help them not get pregnant. But the actual women of the Supreme Court — each of whom joined in dissenting from the majority Five Man Opinion — see things differently.

In a dissent I'm bound by SCOTUS commentary tradition to call "blistering," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the decision "of startling breadth" that could unleash "havoc" on American society (in fact, Mother Jones surmises that 90% of all American businesses fit the criteria to be classified as "closely-held corporations," so, gird your loins, ladies. Literally). She wrote that for-profit companies, unlike nonprofits, don't exist to further an agenda beyond money making and therefore cannot be said to have religious beliefs, and points out that one of the forms of birth control objected to by the fact-ignoring folks at Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby is the IUD, which, if purchased and installed without the help of insurance, would cost about as much as a woman earning minimum wage would make in a month. "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," she wrote.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby (and its all-female legal team) today, I suspect, because there simply aren't enough women in positions of power to counter the latest attack on contraception from the right. There aren't enough people in government — or on the Court — who know personally what it feels like to be a low-income woman who does not want to become pregnant.

None of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, dangerous pregnancies, or simply risked becoming pregnant at a time that they weren't mentally, fiscally, or physically prepared for a pregnancy. They bought Hobby Lobby's "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!" argument despite the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn't personally object to covering vasectomies for men; their religion only applies slut panic to women. The Court won't classify Hobby Lobby's woman-only scientifically illiterate objections to contraception as "discrimination" against women. But it would be discrimination if Hobby Lobby's religious objections applied to black people or gay people. Are you following? Me neither.

Who would have guessed five schlubby law nerds would be capable of such a stunning display of mental gymnastics?

For years, it seems that the men who run things in this country have been dancing around the implication that women aren't people, at least when put up against other, more important things like men, corporations, zygotes, and male feelings. But now, finally, in the year 2014, two generations removed from the first Supreme Court case that established that states can't make it illegal to purchase contraception, five dudes on the highest court in the land have put this in writing. It's not that women don't matter, it's that they matter measurably less than a corporation's "conscience."

But everything isn't bleak doom and gloom. Not yet, at least. Women are lucky that they have Justices Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg in their corner (NEVER DIE, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!). Some pundits are speculating that this legal clusterfuck serves to further justify permanently decoupling health care coverage with employment at some point down the road. Others are hopeful that this case, the judicial abortion that I sincerely believe that it is, will galvanize women (and men) who don't like their bosses all up in their **** to actually vote this November.

Your boss can't stop you from doing that.

http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-people-but-corporations-are-1598061808

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 7,554 • Replies: 182

 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 09:46 am
But they'll pay for fertility treatments, WTF?

This is truly a step backwards.

Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 10:10 am
@chai2,
They also don't mind investing their monies in abortion and birth control products. It isn't okay for their employees to get insurance benefits for it, but it is quite okay to make a profit off of those who do choose to use the products.

Exactly where is the defining line of moral authority that is being invoked 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/
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Lordyaswas
 
  6  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 10:50 am
@coldjoint,
Ah, the resident tosser has a new emoticon.
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:03 am
@Lordyaswas,
Quote:
Ah, the resident tosser has a new emoticon.


In a place populated with narrow minded arrogant people, like yourself, someone has to do it.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:39 am
If I incorporated myself would I become a full person?

Would the court have to recognize my strongly held beliefs?
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:40 am
@bobsal u1553115,
You do realize that this only applies to Abortion type drugs right? It in no way says they don't have to provide other types of birth control. They only had a problem with the abortion drugs.

coldjoint
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:51 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You do realize that this only applies to Abortion type drugs right?


That fact does not fit the narrative. Therefore it will be ignored. This is a matter of conscience, and progressives are devoid of that and want everyone else to be too.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:53 am
Hobby Lobby covers:
Quote:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants


Hobby Lobby does not cover:
Quote:

Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
Copper Intra-Uterine Device
IUD with progestin

What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 11:59 am
Quote:
The 3 biggest lies liberals are telling about the Hobby Lobby ruling


Quote:

Lie #1: Men are taking away women’s rights … again!

The easiest spin on the case was to frame the discussion away from religious rights, and make it a case of women’s rights. Feminists, liberal reporters, and even the White House got on the bandwagon for this one. The hashtag #NotMyBossesBusiness trended with the misleading message that employers were preventing their female employees from accessing birth control.



Lie #2: Conservatives are prudes who want to take away access to all contraception, which is a healthcare issue for many women.

Another argument making it’s rounds was that conservatives and religious organizations are trying to stop women from having sex, but that’s not the only reason women use contraception. While it is true that women use birth control for a variety of hormonal conditions, in this case Hobby Lobby already covered several different types of hormonal contraception, they were only objecting to 4 types of abortifacient pills, required under the HHS mandate. Hobby Lobby refused to pay for “morning after” abortion pills, not standard birth control.



Lie #3: Now any employer can claim religious objections to healthcare provisions in their plans

First of all, Alito wrote that vaccinations and blood transfusions were exempt from this ruling, and neither does the ruling “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” While liberals tried to make this a religious-rights-slippery-slope, the court carefully restricted this ruling to just employer-provided contraception.


Give it up liberals. It is not what you say it is, and never was.
http://youngcons.com/the-3-biggest-lies-liberals-are-telling-about-the-hobby-lobby-ruling/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:02 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Would the court have to recognize my strongly held beliefs?


If those beliefs said you should not abet abortion because it is murder, the answer is yes. 5 to 4
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:05 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
They only had a problem with the abortion drugs.


First of all it is not just a drug they had a problem with but also a very common birth control device and second of all this is opening the door for any firm to denial covering any medical treatment if they had a religion problem with it.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:08 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
fear


that's what it's all about in the US these days

fear

Fascinating to watch from a distance.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:08 pm
@BillRM,
That is not what the decision says. This is the slippery slope argument being blown out of control. This was a narrow ruling. So the IUD is also involved. It is still a very small percentage of the available birth-control methods. Once again no one is saying that they can ban birth control or even tell workers what they can and cannot do. The ruling didn't say that.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:14 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:


It nice to know they have a right for religion reasons to overrule both a woman and her doctor choices of birth control methods.

An once more this is just the beginning of businesses claiming the rights to interfere with medical treatments of all kinds due to their religion beliefs.

If in good conscience if they have a problem with covering medical treatments they should just sell their business not be able to denial medical treatments to their employees.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:17 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
If those beliefs said you should not abet abortion because it is murder, the answer is yes. 5 to 4


It is still no as in hell no and if they have a problem sell their damn business so their money is not going to so call abortions IE problem solve.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:17 pm
America needs a tough-talking woman President like Sarah Palin to put things right..Smile
But to their shame America's women missed their chance to put a woman in the White House as vice-pres to Johnny McCain when she was his running mate, and stabbed her in the back by voting for Obama instead..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Sarah-PalinB_zpsb4c0bbbc.jpg~original
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:21 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
they can ban birth control or even tell workers what they can and cannot do. The ruling didn't say that.


Sorry but if such businesses have a right to interfere with any aspects of medical treatments due to religion reasons then there is zero logic that businesses would not have a right to interfere with all repeat all aspects of medical treatments.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2014 12:21 pm
@BillRM,
Lies Bill. There is nothing in this decision that says an employer can prevent their employees from using ANY type of birth-control. It simply says that the company shouldn't be forced to pay for it or even be forced to carry it. No one is preventing them from using what they want to use.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Hobby Lobby and Christian Values - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Women Aren't People (But Corporations Are)
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 10:10:39