Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Chit Chat
Chit Chat
New Discussion

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

1…5678911»

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

  • AuroraRose41AuroraRose41 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    @sarahbear31 thank you for the suggestion. From what I can tell, the way they would treat abnormal bleeding looks similar to what another physician would do in the event that I wanted to go off of birth control and try to get pregnant, but still control bleeding. I will keep it in the back of my mind though when I get to that time. I do see that they promote being "Catholic minded"; would it be a problem that I am not Catholic (raised/baptised Protestant; no longer religious). I don't put others down for their beliefs, but personally wouldn't want to see a doctor promoting for me to join something that I personally don't believe in, if that makes sense (in the same way that you wouldn't want to go to one who tried to push you into taking birth control).

    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    @AuroraRose41, I appreciate your wariness. To be honest, if my obgyn wasn't specifically a NaPro doc, I wouldn't know that she was Catholic. It really doesn't come up, I promise.




    Report Reply
  • kat1114kat1114 member
    First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    AuroraRose41 said:
    @JCBride my BF and I crack up every time we see it! We want to get a Corgi so badly.

    I am considering going into a Patent Law training program through my company, as my skill set of technical writing, loving to research, and being able to explain complicated electrical engineering things in layman's terms seems to line up better with that then my current engineering job. I don't think I would be prosecuting much, but was curious due to having a scientific/technical background already. It was also one of the biggest things bothering me about this case, setting aside my personal thoughts on contraception. Thanks!
    @AuroraRose41 Sorry to randomly chime in. Just an FYI, you don't need a science background to do patent litigation (although it will definitely serve you well to have one). Patent litigators also do more "lawerly" type stuff in that they will write motions, conduct discovery, and do other things a normal litigator would typically do. Patent prosecutors, on the other hand, work the filing process of a patent and work more closely with inventors. I think both are interesting areas of law. It just boils down to what your personal preference is.
    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    @JCbride2015‌ , I just saw this and thought you'd like it ....

    10 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Photoshops You Need In Your Life http://bzfd.it/1qnWQDy




    Report Reply
  • AuroraRose41AuroraRose41 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    @kat1114 no problem with the chiming in! The patent law training program my company offers is actually for people who hold a bachelor's degree in either electrical or computer engineering (I have a BSEE). They mostly work with the inventors, research to make sure that there is no prior art that the patent would infringe upon, and help to file it. That being said, I work in the wireless industry, and although things have been pretty calm lately, everyone not living under a rock is familiar with how quickly lawsuits can happen in this field (i.e. rounded corners and the pinch to zoom feature debacle...also disclaimer, I do not work for either of those companies, but I am definitely interested whenever they sue one another being in the industry still). As an EE, I also know that within the next 10 years, we are going to have a lot of new technologies coming out, and I am sure there will be a large amount of lawsuits over who did what first, based on the history of this field. So it would be a great time for me to get into it and possibly have the chance to participate in those lawsuits as well as the more day to day work with the inventors.

    Report Reply
  • ViczaesarViczaesar member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    JCbride2015 said:
    sarahbear31 said:
    JCbride2015 said:
    daria24 said:
    And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
    That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.
    Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

    This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to.  This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

    By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme.  That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.).  The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual.  So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

    Nope, sorry.  You shouldn't have it both ways.  This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.
    Let me ask another question ... apparently this ruling opens the doors for a LOT of non profits who don't want to include coverage of contraceptives.  What's your take on that in light of corporate law?
    @sarahbear31 I don't know nearly as much as about non-profit corporations.  I know in general, they are governed by the same corporate law principles I explained above, although they get certain tax breaks and benefits I know less about.

    I actually thought that religious organizations (such as Catholic schools and hospitals) were already specifically exempted from contraceptive coverage under the ACA.

    But it makes sense that maybe organizations that didn't qualify for the original, express, exemption written into the ACA, would definitely use this precedent to seek the exemption now.
    Sort of.  Religiously-identified non-profits have an accommodation where they can sign a form certifying their objection to covering contraceptives and the insurer will provide the coverage directly.  But as of now 122 non-profits have sued, claiming that signing the opt-out form also violates their religious liberty.  (insert eyeroll here)  Houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread their faith are exempt from having to offer birth control.

    On Thursday Sotomayor issued a scathing dissent, which was signed by the other two female Justices, in the case of Wheaton College.  So now they can refuse to allow the insurance they're paying for to provide birth control (which quite frankly should be renamed, since about half of all users use it primarily to treat a medical condition and not for contraceptive purposes), AND they can refuse to fill out the paperwork that would let the insurance do an end-run around them, absolving them from having to pay for said birth control. They're not just happy that they don't have to pay for it, they apparently don't want their employees to be able to access it at all.  And that is so fucked up I can't wrap my brain around how they're getting away with this.  

    My favorite quote from Sotomayor's dissent: “Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” Sotomayor wrote. “But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened … does not make it so.” She added, “Not every sincerely felt ‘burden’ is a ‘substantial’ one, and it is for courts, not litigants, to identify which are.” 




    Report Reply
  • JCbride2015JCbride2015 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    Viczaesar said:


    JCbride2015 said:


    sarahbear31 said:


    JCbride2015 said:


    daria24 said:
    And once again I am that you have incorporated your company-you have made it it's own separate entity in order to get tax benefits and to indemnify you, as a person, from legal action.
    That corporation is paying for the insurance. Not YOU, as a person. (I am taking out of the equation companies that are not incorporated). THAT CORPORATION should not have religious beliefs. You SHOULD NOT be able to create a separate "being" as it were (the corporation) and have it be completely separate from YOU as a PERSON, for legal/tax reasons, but then all of sudden you get to use your beliefs to get a legal exemption from what that corporation does or does not do.

    Let's get back to what the case was actually about.

    This has nothing to do with non-profit religious groups or individuals having to pay for something they object to.  This has everything to do with corporations being declared people with religious beliefs.

    By incorporating their business, the shareholders of HL have voluntarily opted in to a certain legal scheme.  That scheme comes with plenty of benefits (primarily liability protection for them as individuals) and some obligations (financial reporting, complying with laws regarding employment, etc.).  The purpose of incorporation is to separate the individual from the business, for the protection of the individual.  So the shareholders want the corporate veil protection when it benefits them, but they want to break down the corporate veil and impose their own religion on their 23,000 employees.

    Nope, sorry.  You shouldn't have it both ways.  This ruling makes zero sense in the scheme of corporate law.

    Let me ask another question ... apparently this ruling opens the doors for a LOT of non profits who don't want to include coverage of contraceptives.  What's your take on that in light of corporate law?

    @sarahbear31 I don't know nearly as much as about non-profit corporations.  I know in general, they are governed by the same corporate law principles I explained above, although they get certain tax breaks and benefits I know less about.

    I actually thought that religious organizations (such as Catholic schools and hospitals) were already specifically exempted from contraceptive coverage under the ACA.

    But it makes sense that maybe organizations that didn't qualify for the original, express, exemption written into the ACA, would definitely use this precedent to seek the exemption now.



    Sort of.  Religiously-identified non-profits have an accommodation where they can sign a form certifying their objection to covering contraceptives and the insurer will provide the coverage directly.  But as of now 122 non-profits have sued, claiming that signing the opt-out form also violates their religious liberty.  (insert eyeroll here)  Houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread their faith are exempt from having to offer birth control.

    On Thursday Sotomayor issued a scathing dissent, which was signed by the other two female Justices, in the case of Wheaton College.  So now they can refuse to allow the insurance they're paying for to provide birth control (which quite frankly should be renamed, since about half of all users use it primarily to treat a medical condition and not for contraceptive purposes), AND they can refuse to fill out the paperwork that would let the insurance do an end-run around them, absolving them from having to pay for said birth control. They're not just happy that they don't have to pay for it, they apparently don't want their employees to be able to access it at all.  And that is so fucked up I can't wrap my brain around how they're getting away with this.  

    My favorite quote from Sotomayor's dissent: “Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” Sotomayor wrote. “But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened … does not make it so.” She added, “Not every sincerely felt ‘burden’ is a ‘substantial’ one, and it is for courts, not litigants, to identify which are.” 



    Yes, I was just reading this article!!! The height of hypocrisy.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    First Comment First Anniversary First Answer 5 Love Its
    Viczaesar said:
    My favorite quote from Sotomayor's dissent: “Let me be absolutely clear: I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” Sotomayor wrote. “But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened … does not make it so.” She added, “Not every sincerely felt ‘burden’ is a ‘substantial’ one, and it is for courts, not litigants, to identify which are.” 

    Seriosuly?! Filling out a document violates their religious beliefs?

    image
    Report Reply
  • mrsmagicgeekmrsmagicgeek member
    5 Love Its First Answer First Comment Name Dropper
    AuroraRose41 said:

    @chibiyui, you just made me laugh! They are all so adorable! Also, my BF (who is quite the gamer) made me play Legends of Zelda, and your siggy perfectly describes my experience with that game using the Nintendo 64 controller.

    I just wanted to share that my FI ported the original Legend of Zelda and space invaders onto my tablet as part of his proposal. I do love that guy :)
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards