General Discussion

uponit7771

(90,304 posts) Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:00 PM Jun 2014

Soooooooooo... now corporations can "define" what an abortion is?

Read the decision, the SCOTUS's more or less take the corporations word for what an abortion is... they weren't going off of any relative professional input.....

This decision

was

not

thought

through

Regards

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Soooooooooo... now corporations can "define" what an abortion is? (Original Post) uponit7771 Jun 2014 OP

Yup. BootinUp Jun 2014 #1

SCOTUS is an abortion. Or, at the very least, an abomination. nt Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #2

This is a Dread Scott level decision, at least with Bush V Gore the court KNEW they were FOS uponit7771 Jun 2014 #3

According to SCOTUS's vote it's OK for companies to keep their female employees Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #4

... even worse... they ... they don't even outline terms they used in the decision uponit7771 Jun 2014 #5

As a matter of fact, they did customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #7

As I read the decision customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #6

That's still prior to the medical definition of pregnancy. No implantation= no pregnancy. LeftyMom Jul 2014 #17

Perhaps customerserviceguy Jul 2014 #18

I disagree with you. toddwv Jun 2014 #8

Shit, someone needs to make a documentary called "The American Taliban" nt BootinUp Jun 2014 #9

I'm tryin really hard to give those guys the benefit of the doubt.. this decision is so stupid... uponit7771 Jun 2014 #10

SCOTUS Catholic guys: If it involves girly bits, it's an abortion. longship Jul 2014 #11

What's with that "limitation" are they saying they just wont apply the logic elsewhere because?... uponit7771 Jul 2014 #12

That's a very good question. longship Jul 2014 #13

It's a tacit admission that their decision sucks. winter is coming Jul 2014 #16

That is a terrifying thought. n/t Raine1967 Jul 2014 #14

K&R thanks uponit Cha Jul 2014 #15

BootinUp

(47,087 posts)

1. Yup.

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:03 PM

Jun 2014

Xipe Totec

(43,888 posts)

2. SCOTUS is an abortion. Or, at the very least, an abomination. nt

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:03 PM

Jun 2014

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)

3. This is a Dread Scott level decision, at least with Bush V Gore the court KNEW they were FOS

Reply to Xipe Totec (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:04 PM

Jun 2014

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)

4. According to SCOTUS's vote it's OK for companies to keep their female employees

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:08 PM

Jun 2014

barefoot and pregnant if they've a religious reason for doing so.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)

5. ... even worse... they ... they don't even outline terms they used in the decision

Reply to Louisiana1976 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:10 PM

Jun 2014

... like what do they call an "alternative" that should be offered.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)

7. As a matter of fact, they did

Reply to uponit7771 (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:28 PM

Jun 2014

They referred specifically to the setup where religious nonprofits would have their workers covered by a health plan that put 100% of the burden of payment on the insurer to supply contraception, and they even cited the fact that those costs would net out with the costs of the pregnancies they would prevent.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)

6. As I read the decision

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:25 PM

Jun 2014

They took the FDA's impression of what an abortifacient might be. They referred to a FDA website:

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/freepublications/ucm313215.htm

where the words, "It may also work ... by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus)." were used to describe Plan B, the words "It may also work by changing the lining of the womb (uterus) that may prevent attachment (implantation)." were used to describe Ella (ulipristal acetate), and the words "...may prevent the egg from attaching (implanting) in the womb (uterus)." were used in describing the copper IUD.

If any of the above is provably untrue, why didn't the government make that case?

LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)

17. That's still prior to the medical definition of pregnancy. No implantation= no pregnancy.

Reply to customerserviceguy (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:07 PM

Jul 2014

You can't abort prior to the start of a pregnancy.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)

18. Perhaps

Reply to LeftyMom (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:17 AM

Jul 2014

But some view fertilization as the moment that human life begins. The SCOTUS just said that RFRA covers that belief.

toddwv

(2,830 posts)

8. I disagree with you.

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:23 PM

Jun 2014

The right-wing idealogues that constitute Robert's SCOTUS know EXACTLY what they are doing and have thought it through. This precedent, regardless of their verbage about how it's limited in application, opens the door and you can guarantee that the corporatists and the American Taliban will flood through it.

BootinUp

(47,087 posts)

9. Shit, someone needs to make a documentary called "The American Taliban" nt

Reply to toddwv (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:30 PM

Jun 2014

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)

10. I'm tryin really hard to give those guys the benefit of the doubt.. this decision is so stupid...

Reply to toddwv (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:32 PM

Jun 2014

... Alitos logic is.. I mean ... even he doesn't believe the shit he tried to pass as law

longship

(40,416 posts)

11. SCOTUS Catholic guys: If it involves girly bits, it's an abortion.

Reply to uponit7771 (Original post)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:43 AM

Jul 2014

Against all that biological science says.

Note that they deliberately limited this ruling to the girly parts of medicine.

Did I mention that they are all Catholic?

Pshaw!