Employers allowed to refuse birth control insurance, says Supreme Court

[Barbarella]

How old are these SCOTUS guys? Maybe some will die soon.

Can a new president replace a SCOTUS member?

My only solace in this is that most of the folks upholding these regressive values are geezers. Fortunately, they're old and are slowly dying off. One of the factors in taking this country back is simply letting Mother Nature & Father Time do their jobs.

Even if both parties are influenced by corporations, the Dems seem a lot saner and easier for "We The People" to influence & convince. I'd imagine not all CEOs are C'thulhu.

*sigh* I'll just have to accept that the world has always been a Plutocracy in one form or another. That said, Democracy & Republicanism still exist. The Plutocracy can't be stopped but it could be controlled. There's a lot of factors.

Maybe this will get folks condom-crazy! After all, stuff like HIV/AIDS is still floating around and condoms are relatively inexpensive & over-the-counter. If we can get a bunch of free-lance sex-ed types out there, passing out literature, creating YouTube sites and whatnot in an effort to make condoms "cool" and provide tips to make use fun & comfy for the guys, that would be great.

Unfortunately, those who need The Pill for hormonal therapy are still in a bind.

I try to find that silver lining and ways to re-adapt....to bend the rules or get around restrictions. Loopholes are your friend.

I can't see what CEOs are set to gain from all this. Pandering to religious nuts? More future workers born?

[Ironchew]

How old are these SCOTUS guys? Maybe some will die soon.

Curiously, no SCOTUS justice has ever been assassinated. Maybe that will change in the near future, but the nutjobs who attempt such actions hardly ever choose a low-profile target.

Can a new president replace a SCOTUS member?

Only if they die or voluntarily step down. Congress also has to approve the nomination.

My only solace in this is that most of the folks upholding these regressive values are geezers. Fortunately, they're old and are slowly dying off. One of the factors in taking this country back is simply letting Mother Nature & Father Time do their jobs.

You're assuming that the country is becoming more progressive, but unfortunately there are many conservatives down the pike (think Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and co.) that will be around for several more decades and plenty of conservatives out there that will potentially be nominated as justices in the future. The country is becoming more economically neoliberal and I don't see that trend reversing itself anytime soon. Socially liberal as Libertarians may be, they seem to defer to their economic sensibilities when social freedom and economic freedom come into conflict.

Maybe this will get folks condom-crazy! After all, stuff like HIV/AIDS is still floating around and condoms are relatively inexpensive & over-the-counter. If we can get a bunch of free-lance sex-ed types out there, passing out literature, creating YouTube sites and whatnot in an effort to make condoms "cool" and provide tips to make use fun & comfy for the guys, that would be great.

There's no overwhelming benefit to men to use condoms, because we don't get pregnant. I'm guessing condom use will remain at its current per-capita consumption.

I can't see what CEOs are set to gain from all this. Pandering to religious nuts? More future workers born?

The religion mind virus at work. Even if nobody benefits, the religious ideas have to spread somehow.

[RavynousHunter]

Maybe this will get folks condom-crazy! After all, stuff like HIV/AIDS is still floating around and condoms are relatively inexpensive & over-the-counter. If we can get a bunch of free-lance sex-ed types out there, passing out literature, creating YouTube sites and whatnot in an effort to make condoms "cool" and provide tips to make use fun & comfy for the guys, that would be great.

There's no overwhelming benefit to men to use condoms, because we don't get pregnant. I'm guessing condom use will remain at its current per-capita consumption.

...You do know that child support is still a thing, right?

[Ironchew]

It's only a legal structure, not a biological risk.

[Eiki-mun]

SCOTUS surely isn't limited to nine people, is it? Or did they change that sometime after FDR tried to add more people?

[RavynousHunter]

It's only a legal structure, not a biological risk.

...Your post implied that how, exactly?  Also, how are HIV, AIDS, and every other STD on the planet not a biological risk?  The reason we don't have much incentive to use rubbers isn't because "there's no risk for men," but because we've been fed bullshit in school that condoms don't work, if we're even told about their existence in the first place.  Its not because we're "not at risk," its because we're being kept ignorant by regressives who want to send us back to the Stone Age.

[Askold]

It's only a legal structure, not a biological risk.

...Your post implied that how, exactly?  Also, how are HIV, AIDS, and every other STD on the planet not a biological risk?  The reason we don't have much incentive to use rubbers isn't because "there's no risk for men," but because we've been fed bullshit in school that condoms don't work, if we're even told about their existence in the first place.  Its not because we're "not at risk," its because we're being kept ignorant by regressives who want to send us back to the Stone Age.

Yeah, in sexual relationships where STDs are a risk there is no good alternative for condoms. (...Well, apart from only using sex toys and avoiding direct contact. Which can be enjoyable as well I suppose.) And sometimes even in committed relationships condoms are a viable choice, such as when the partner has trouble getting contraceptives due to a supreme court decision or if there are medical reasons why the woman can't use other contraceptives.

[Vypernight]

And yet they still cover Viagra, etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html

[Eiki-mun]

And yet they still cover Viagra, etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html

At least with Viagra, they can create the defense that they're encouraging procreation. The real kicker is that they cover vasectomies. So birth control for men is fine and dandy and they cover that, but birth control for women is evil and wrong.

[Ironchew]

It's only a legal structure, not a biological risk.

...Your post implied that how, exactly?  Also, how are HIV, AIDS, and every other STD on the planet not a biological risk?  The reason we don't have much incentive to use rubbers isn't because "there's no risk for men," but because we've been fed bullshit in school that condoms don't work, if we're even told about their existence in the first place.  Its not because we're "not at risk," its because we're being kept ignorant by regressives who want to send us back to the Stone Age.

Yeah, in sexual relationships where STDs are a risk there is no good alternative for condoms. (...Well, apart from only using sex toys and avoiding direct contact. Which can be enjoyable as well I suppose.) And sometimes even in committed relationships condoms are a viable choice, such as when the partner has trouble getting contraceptives due to a supreme court decision or if there are medical reasons why the woman can't use other contraceptives.

I didn't say there wasn't *any* risk for men (I am well aware of condoms being an effective measure against STDs), just that the risks of unprotected sex are greater for women and I didn't buy Spuki's claim that condom use would skyrocket as a consequence of this ruling. Responsible men use condoms already, and I don't see the demographics changing in that regard.

[Askold]

You said: "There is no overwhelming benefit to men to use condoms, because we don't get pregnant." That does give the implication that the only use you see from condoms is to prevent pregnancy. (And for some reason you don't think that men have any responsibility over getting someone pregnant.)

[Ironchew]

I said the part that was quoted, yes. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Askold]

And I said, that is what I got from your words.

Lets be honest, how else were we supposed to interpret what you said? You specifically said that there is no benefit to men from condoms since men don't get pregnant. And later said that child support does not count since that is a legal matter, "not a biological risk."

From those two comments it really did seem like you consider pregancy to be the only "risk" in sex and disregard STDs.

[Barbarella]

I pretty much ignore what Irontroll says. He like to take away all hope & silver-linings. He's a nobody. Irontroll is wrong and people like myself, a few others & Ultimate Paragon, who believe in hope & see the VERY REAL silver lining and acknowledge humanity's GOOD side are right. Irontroll is a dumbass.

[Witchyjoshy]

I pretty much ignore what Irontroll says. He like to take away all hope & silver-linings. He's a nobody. Irontroll is wrong and people like myself, a few others & Ultimate Paragon, who believe in hope & see the VERY REAL silver lining and acknowledge humanity's GOOD side are right. Irontroll is a dumbass.

*sighs*

Spuki, there's no gentle way to say this.

You're being an ass.  Stop being an ass.

Ironchew hasn't even done anything remotely "trollish" since he got back from the ban.  Right now, you're kinda filling his slot.

Also, stop with the sanctimonious garbage.  I heard enough of it when I was a fundie Christian, I don't need to hear it from someone who is, for all practical purposes, acting like a frummer of paganism.

You also need to learn to start thinking twice about what you say.  There's a lot of situations you could avoid getting yourself in if you would just stop and think about what you're saying instead of rushing forward with sanctimonious indignation.  It's a lesson I've had to learn and it's a lesson you need to learn, too.