The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Today In The [War On Women] : Daniel Tosh - Professional Goosebag
Posts
Right. It's not too far removed in thought from religious organizations arguing that First Amendment protections should allow them to demand itemized receipts from their employees to ensure that their money isn't being spent on anything the Church doesn't condone.
Exactly. And in the case of like say Georgetown and Sandra Fluke its even worse, because they require students to have the health insurance (so the students have to pay for it) and then deny the health insurance covering things they personally don't agree with. So you have to use their insurance and pay for it, and they get to decide what it covers. And for the stupid win, the teachers insurance at georgetown COVERS BIRTH CONTROL WITHOUT THE SAME RESTRICTIONS! *Insert Sam Kinison oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh*
pleasepaypreacher.net
The closer analogue would be Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which a Native American who was fired for smoking peyote was told he wasn't eligible for unemployment benefits, regardless of the fact that peyote smoking is part of his religion. i.e. he broke the law for his religion, and the government wasn't required to let him do it under the first amendment. A similar standard will apply here, if the author of the opinion (one A. Scalia) remains consistent (anyone taking that bet?).
No, because I don't think even Nino is arrogant enough to not recuse himself. If this case makes it that far, there could be serious problems.
Bullshit, if Thomas didn't step out on the healthcare decision when his wife directly worked in a lobbying firm against it, then none of the conservaderps on the supreme court will step out on a decision they can have go 5/4 against some actual progression in america.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What is the worst that could happen to Scalia? Honestly? People in slightly greater numbers wake up to him being an ideological douchbag? For that to actually motivate him he'd first need to have a sense of shame.
Why, oh why do we not have stricter protections against conflicts of interest? -_-;;
Because the founding fathers never imagined the supreme court could become a political arm. The idea was fairly simple in that they judge laws constitutional or not, only in these hyper partisan times could crazy decisions like Bush V Gore ever happen.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It claimed that the mandate means catholic hospitals are going to have start asking patients if they are catholic before admitting them, and that catholic run food pantries will have to ask needy people if they are catholic before helping them.
From what I can tell, it's all about who they offer insurance coverage to. Basically employees and students. It's got nothing to do with how they do their ministry and service.
But there was an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post today. The writer pointed out that only 13 dioces were involved in the lawsuit. There are something like 190+ dioces in the US. So less than 10% decided to lodge the lawsuit.
I found the piece online: http://www.timesdaily.com/stories/A-Catholic-spring-to-the-right,190930
Actually, they originally didn't even have them doing that. It wasn't until 1803, in Marbury v. Madison that the idea of judging laws based on their constitutionality really appeared.
The initially imagined Supreme Court was extremely weak.
Amusingly, Marbury v. Madison is just as partisan as Bush v Gore--the whole case was about the Federalists, who had just lost the Presidency (but not before trying to rush through a bunch of judicial appointments at the last lame-duck minute) suing to force the Democratic Republicans to honor the half-complete midnight appointments. In other words, the minority party trying to wield the Court as a cudgel against their enemies. Rather than be used by either party (which would make the Court look weak), the Supremes elected to find the law the suit was based on unconstitutional. ("Can they do that?" "Apparently.")
Nor should they.
And that's what I was saying.
It's even more amusing when you realize that Marshall, the man who elevated the lame Supreme Court to an equal branch of the government had absolutely no interest in being the Chief Justice let alone a regular Justice and generally thought the Supreme Court was useless.
Marbury v. Madison remains the greatest F* you to the political system this country has ever seen.
Actually no I don't misunderstand anything. It isn't infringing religious freedom to tell a tiny minority of Catholics to STFU and GTFO when they try to use the law to deny important medical coverage to everyone. There's an important distinction between forcing them to use BC and forcing them to not deny it to people. That's what the "it's 2012, deal with it" comment means.
The argument lies in the idea that the state will start forcing the church to make a purchase against its beliefs (providing a health plan which includes birth control). Which is ludicrous because of course that is the employee's purchase; you pay into your healthcare and you are trading a service for compensation.
Not to mention the compromise that was touted at the beginning of the year was constructed specifically to keep from forcing the churches to do anything.
I have to agree. Several years ago my wife and I became Catholic (no longer) and we were SHOCKED the number of Catholics who just didn't care about birth control. And the number of priests as well! Now, we went to a super-double-dog conservative church that did care about all of that (if you're going to convert, why go half way?) but in a "normal" church it was my experience the vast majority could care less whether someone used birth control.
See, now you're just being silly.
Employees don't have rights, they should in fact be grateful for getting hired in the first place!
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
http://www.care2.com/causes/oklahoma-rape-victim-turned-away-from-hospital.html#ixzz1wOowMf60
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Jesus christ.
That hospital had nothing to do with turning down that patient. It's a resource allocation issue, and it happens all the time. I've personally turned patients away from the various hospitals I've worked at who are seeking the same thing, directing them to the proper facilities.
If there isn't a facility nearby for patients like the girl in the story, that isn't the hospital's fault, it's the state and county's fault for not having the necessary personnel.
The idea here is the reason they don't have good staffing are local laws and attitudes that understaff these particular things. And not providing the woman emergency birth control is the shit cherry on this awful sundae.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's not something Emergency Rooms provide. Like, ever.
Is this just in texas? Because that seems like something that wouldn't be universal across the US. Much like not having proper staffing for people to properly handle a rape would seem more like a red state problem than a blue one to be perfectly honest.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And that's in fucking South Carolina. Not exactly a beacon of liberalism.
Of course, now might be the time to rename the thread "Ross learns that his home is still terrible."
And then you have Sam Beckett leap into her and beat up her rapist...
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm pretty sure since the rape or sexual assault can't be confirmed without the SANE nurse, the hospital and doctor's liability protocols would prevent them from handing out emergency meds.
Wait why would it need to be confirmed to hand out medicine? Are you saying that you can't just take a woman at her word she was raped and supply her with what she wants? That seems extrordinarly fucking retarded.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Certainly you can understand there's a big difference between treating a bacterial infection and terminating a viable pregnancy with painful and dangerous drugs, right?
Is that what happened?
It's all about liability, man. Handwringing alone ain't going to help that situation improve.
Levonorgestrel is a contraceptive, not an abortion. Yes, you can hand out a contraceptive.
Levonorgestrel is over-the-counter and rarely used in the clinical setting, therefore is not in most hospitals' formulary.
Mifeprestone is one that hospitals do usually carry, however, but the side effects are both painful and dangerous.
Well unless the news article has seriously misrepresented the situation, admittedly that wouldn't exactly be a first, and I don't exactly throw 100% trust behind the source of the story but if you take it at face value it certainly seems that yeah, she got turned away from a hospital without receiving care. Otherwise the story would be "hospital doesn't give rape victim emergency birth control" which while bad, isn't quite as bad as the picture painted here.
The fact that this story exists at all makes me suspicious. I'm not seeing a lot of obvious malfeasance here on the hospital's part, and it really wouldn't surprise me if the family of the patient just called the news and tried to sensationalize an issue they didn't really understand.
That kind of shit happens a lot in ERs. People don't understand that all ERs aren't Level 1 Mega-Facilities that do everything and freak out. I had a lady last year that tried to sue the hospital for not having a hand surgeon in ER to treat her massive laceration, and she refused to see the regular ER doctor despite the fact she was bleeding all over the place.