Pennsylvania Voter Suppression law in court

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's just not the case. they have said insurers must include birth control as part of their overall services. it's not the employers responsibility, but humana's or bcbs, etc. no one's being forced to buy/use the stuff either. so, people are free to continue to use the rhythm method as the pope tells them.
i mean, seriously, you think most people don't use the stuff??? that's hilarious.

Loyola University in Chicago is self-insured. I've heard nothing about them being exempted and they will go along with the government's imposition on religion.

I have heard Notre Dame, also self-insured, may be willing to pay some sort of penalty.

And I have no problem personally with people 'using the stuff'.
Just as long as they pay for their own stuff and others are left out of it!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Loyola University in Chicago is self-insured. I've heard nothing about them being exempted and they will go along with the government's imposition on religion.

I have heard Notre Dame, also self-insured, may be willing to pay some sort of penalty.

And I have no problem personally with people 'using the stuff'.
Just as long as they pay for their own stuff and others are left out of it!

every other aspect of pregnancy is handled by health care and insurance. i don't get why you and some others have an issue with bc being included. especially when one considers some of the other things that are covered.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

every other aspect of pregnancy is handled by health care and insurance. i don't get why you and some others have an issue with bc being included. especially when one considers some of the other things that are covered.

Personally I don't have a problem with it either but obviously others do. And I respect freedom of religion (as long as its doctrines are within the country's laws) more than I do the freedom to receive free BC pills.

Face it we were lied to once again. If BC actually lowers healthcare costs overall insurance companies by way of free market would have had it included all along.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Personally I don't have a problem with it either but obviously others do. And I respect freedom of religion (as long as its doctrines are within the country's laws) more than I do the freedom to receive free BC pills. Face it we were lied to once again. If BC actually lowers healthcare costs overall insurance companies by way of free market would have had it included all along.

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

[Antitrust32]

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

Yeah that.

Except mine of course, LOL.

No religion.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all!

car policies cover any driver given permission to drive. so an individual doesn't have to have car insurance, but the owner of the car does...so there goes your analogy. they aren't similar, so i'm not sure why people keep trying to have a correlation between one kind of insurance and another.

they are forcing people to buy, so as to keep the whole thing afloat. if there was no way to compel the young and healthy to buy, obamacare would be far too costly for insurance companies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it

Once again, Dell, what you say is blatently false: this administration is NOT forcing birth control as part of health insurance policies on any group with religious objections. There is a simple out, to protect the civil rights of employees from religious persecution (for not agreeing with employer), where the insurance company will provide it, and the employer will have nothing to do with it.

You're entitled to your opinions Dell, but you've been far outvoted by the rest of your American fellows, who prefer a 21st century country, rather than a 1700's one. Get over it or move out.

[Danzig]

and back to the topic at hand (gotta love the title to this thread )


judge rules:


http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-j...141100233.html

He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said.


much like the scotus ruling a few years ago. the burden to get i.d. is the same for all, the law isn't discriminatory.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and back to the topic at hand (gotta love the title to this thread )


judge rules:


http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-j...141100233.html

He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said.


much like the scotus ruling a few years ago. the burden to get i.d. is the same for all, the law isn't discriminatory.

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

Yes, the judge used the word "ruling". There's a little more to it than that.

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on that he would not give an injunction right now against implementation. Will you give us an injunction temporarily halting implementation, Judge? No, Judge says. But the law is still being appealed immediately to the higher court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the actual law. The law has not been ruled "legal".

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on basically, if he would rule on it.

" He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said."

You sure?