OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, Sta...

OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 11, 2010

1,604 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

DoesntMatter

Metairie, LA

#71962 Jun 30, 2014
Benghazi?

Bergdahl?
TAMARA

Metairie, LA

#71963 Jun 30, 2014
Botched Execution
Packing Heat

Metairie, LA

#71964 Jun 30, 2014

Why haven't the Seditious Adulterous Ho Tramp RESIGNED?
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#71965 Jun 30, 2014
Fake Packing Heat wrote:
Why haven't the Seditious Adulterous Ho Tramp RESIGNED?
Why hasn't *
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#71966 Jun 30, 2014
>Singing "it's a great day for liberty and religious freedom<
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#71967 Jun 30, 2014
Freedom and liberty won today and SEIU lost. It's a great day!
Joyce

United States

#71968 Jun 30, 2014
TAMARA wrote:
Four Points. 1. The following is a GLARING example of the
‘Hypocrisy and Pretext’ concerning Hobby Lobby and their lawsuit: Documents filed with the Dept Of Labor and dated December 2012, three months after the company owners filed their lawsuit, show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency
contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.– they are LIARS and HYPOCRITES, and using religion as a pretext. This has nothing to do with payment, this has to do with a religious organization trying to force everyone to abide by their moral or religious beliefs.
2. Abortion is rarely an easy decision and NO ONE CHEERS
Abortion. A woman (just like a man) has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body, and her assertion of that right TRUMPS whether or not anyone wrongly thinks a fetus is a person at conception, or if she correctly thinks a fetus is not a person in early stages and not viable until 24 weeks of pregnancy. People can decide abortion for THEMSELVES, butthey have no right to make this decision for other women. They do not know the woman”s medical condition, history, or circumstances (Life saving, rape, incest, etc), and they do not own her body she owns her body. IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and they haven't walked in these women's shoes: Abortion is a legal medical procedure and private healthcare matter between the patient and doctor.
WRONG Karen I guess you are proven yet again SCOTUS rules in favor of HOBBY LOBBY!
Joyce

United States

#71969 Jun 30, 2014
SCOTUS also ruled you can FORCE a non-unionized worker to pay union fees...

Wonderful blessed day for FREEDOM
Joyce

United States

#71970 Jun 30, 2014
Oops,

CAN'T FORCE a non-unionized worker to pay union fees.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#71974 Jun 30, 2014
TAMARA wrote:
Four Points. 1. The following is a GLARING example of the
‘Hypocrisy and Pretext’ concerning Hobby Lobby and their lawsuit: Documents filed with the Dept Of Labor and dated December 2012, three months after the company owners filed their lawsuit, show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency
contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.– they are LIARS and HYPOCRITES, and using religion as a pretext. This has nothing to do with payment, this has to do with a religious organization trying to force everyone to abide by their moral or religious beliefs.
2. Abortion is rarely an easy decision and NO ONE CHEERS
Abortion. A woman (just like a man) has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body, and her assertion of that right TRUMPS whether or not anyone wrongly thinks a fetus is a person at conception, or if she correctly thinks a fetus is not a person in early stages and not viable until 24 weeks of pregnancy. People can decide abortion for THEMSELVES, butthey have no right to make this decision for other women. They do not know the woman”s medical condition, history, or circumstances (Life saving, rape, incest, etc), and they do not own her body she owns her body. IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS and they haven't walked in these women's shoes: Abortion is a legal medical procedure and private healthcare matter between the patient and doctor.
This posted by the Fake Tamara which is karen janbaz.

karen if you are proud of your convictions on abortion then put your given name to it and quit posting under everyones elses.

As far as walking in your shoes you had an abortion because you and Ray were not taking precautions and with having a small baby you did not want to be saddled with another even though it could have been a doable thing. There can be good reason for a woman to a have an abortion but yours is not that case.
Donnie

United States

#71976 Jun 30, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the U.S. Constitution is alive and well...

Sorry Yobama you've just been neutered...

http://s1322.photobucket.com/user/WOLFM00N/me...
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#71977 Jun 30, 2014
Oh look. Obamas throwing a temper tantrum today. Congress won't do what he wants so once again he's going to rule like a dictator.
Joyce

Greenbrier, AR

#71981 Jun 30, 2014
The WAR on women is alive and well and all the religious skum is braying like the azz they are.

Soon the SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that a woman place is under her man, in the kitchen, barefooted, and knocked up.

Tis a sad day at rimrock and if the dimwitted women of the country are willing to put up with this sh!t, than continue to vote repig.

Women control the world---They have half of the money and all the PU**SSY.

Excerize you rights while you can--Vote against the dumbazz religious Zealots and repigs.
Bud

Greenbrier, AR

#71982 Jun 30, 2014
TAMARA AND dOSENTmATTER pus**sy IS DRIED UP AND CLOSED DOWN FOR BUSINESS FOR MANY A YEAR.

That is why they are such a grouch and hate all men.
Dr Jones

Greenbrier, AR

#71983 Jun 30, 2014
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg trolls Scalia in blistering dissent of Hobby Lobby ruling

Monday, June 30, 2014 12:57 EDT

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was based on a misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and would likely open the door to a host of unintended consequences.

“Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood – combined with its other errors in construing RFRA – invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith,” she wrote.

The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the government cannot compel closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage for its employees.

In a scathing, 35-page dissent, Ginsberg concluded that the contraception mandate did not impose a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties — and therefore did not violate the RFRA.

She said the Affordable Care Act required employers to direct money into undifferentiated funds to pay for a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans, and Ginsberg said employees were not obligated to use contraception coverage.

“Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being,” Ginsberg wrote.“Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”

While the court has recognized First Amendment protections for churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations, Ginsberg noted that no previous court decisions had ever recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for religious exemption from any laws.

“The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities,” she wrote.

She said religious organizations exist to foster the interests of people who believe in the same faith principles, but that’s not the case among for-profit corporations – and she said that distinction had been clear for centuries prior to the establishment of the Internal Revenue Service.

“Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community,” Ginsberg pointed out.“Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations.”

Although previous rulings required employers to accommodate employees’ religious exercise, Ginsberg noted, those accommodations could not come at the expense of other workers.
Dr Jones

Greenbrier, AR

#71984 Jun 30, 2014
“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention,” she said.“One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”

She said if Congress had wanted RFRA to extend religion-based exemptions to for-profit corporations, which she described as a “huge” change from existing precedent, lawmakers would have said so in the legislation or at least discussed that possibility on the record – which they did not.

“Congress does not ‘hide elephants in mouseholes,’” Ginsberg wrote, quoting a previous decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Although the ruling has been described as a narrow one, applying only to closely held corporations and the contraception mandate, Ginsberg said its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.

“The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public,” she wrote in a footnote.“No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’”

She cited in a footnote to this section a Forbes ranking of the largest closely held companies in the U.S., including family-owned candy giant Mars Inc., with 72,000 employees and $33 billion in revenue, and Cargill Inc., with 140,000 employees and $136 billion in revenue.

Koch Industries, which Ginsberg does not single out, is second on that list, with 60,000 employees and $115 billion in revenue.

Ginsberg singled out Justice Anthony Kennedy, who suggested in a concurring opinion that the government could pay for contraception so women could receive free contraception mandate.

“The ACA, however, requires coverage of preventative services through the existing employer-based system of health insurance ‘so that [employees] face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles,’” Ginsberg wrote.“Impeding women’s receipt of benefits ‘by requiring them to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new [government funded and administered] health benefit’ was scarcely what Congress contemplated.”

She contemplated slippery slope arguments based on the recognition of corporate religious practice.

“Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” Ginsberg asked.

She feared the Supreme Court had “ventured into a minefield” with its ruling.

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,” Ginsberg wrote.
Lola

Greenbrier, AR

#71985 Jun 30, 2014
Let's see - SCOTUS supports a big corporation being called a person and now that person also has "religious beliefs" and they must be allowed not to follow the law about women's health care.
My position is that they have no say in women's health care just as they have no say in a man's health care. Or do they want to banish vasectomies for men now? Might be an interesting test case.
Maddy

Greenbrier, AR

#71986 Jun 30, 2014
Let's keep working towards single-payer Medicare-for-All, so we can get away from all this nonsense.
Justice

Greenbrier, AR

#71987 Jun 30, 2014
Tell us again how the Christianists are being persecuted, SCOTUS. Explain it to us so that we can understand, now that you have decided that religious freedom is only for some people (read corporations). Now that they've set this precedent, they will be able to fire any employee who doesn't bow down to their personal religious belief for any reason they choose.
Linda

Greenbrier, AR

#71988 Jun 30, 2014
Maternal Death Rates:

Chad = 1,100 deaths for every 100,000 live births
United States = 21 deaths for every 100,000 births
The United States ranks 31st in maternal death among the world's 178 countries.

Pregnancy IS a health issue. And five men on the Supreme Court have just ruled that a religious belief specific to one Christian denomination-- not all Christian denominations or other religions are opposed to birth control meds -- trumps insurance provisions for women's health care.

The bastards.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 5 min ChicknButt 101,733
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 265,328
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 25 min grave digger 109,662
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 2 hr bacon hater 101,188
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 3 hr Master of PuPPetz 764
Election Who do you support for Governor in Minnesota in... (Oct '10) Tue Frank 860
Election VA Property Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disab... (Oct '10) Tue tell no lies 1,380
More from around the web