Good News - Tyndale gets injunction against HHS mandate

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
Apparently the courts are not all that impressed with the attempts of the Obama administration to redefine the word church.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily prevented the Obama administration from forcing a Christian publishing company to provide its employees with certain contraceptives under the new healthcare law.U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction sought by Tyndale House Publishers of Carol Stream, Ill., which doesn't want to provide employees with contraceptives that it equates with abortion.
At issue are contraceptives such as Plan B and IUDs.

Bible publisher wins injunction in contraceptive fight | Health | Dallas-Fort Worth Lifestyle...

More details at this link.

Bible Publisher Beats Obama Abortion-HHS Mandate in Court | LifeNews.com
 
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.

It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.
 
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.

It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.

Anything that chips away at the power of the state is good news.
 
The equate IUDs and Plan B with abortion? Is that what I am reading?

The government should stay out of it, but their females employees should sue them, especially if they cover such things as Viagra.
 
The equate IUDs and Plan B with abortion? Is that what I am reading?

The government should stay out of it, but their females employees should sue them, especially if they cover such things as Viagra.

No, what you are reading is that the HHS mandate lumps all methods of contraception under the same definition. Tyndale is opposed to any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.
 
The equate IUDs and Plan B with abortion? Is that what I am reading?

The government should stay out of it, but their females employees should sue them, especially if they cover such things as Viagra.

No, what you are reading is that the HHS mandate lumps all methods of contraception under the same definition. Tyndale is opposed to any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

Which he equates to abortion, states that in your OP.
big surprise the man doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.

It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.

Anything that chips away at the power of the state is good news.

But that's the issue. It doesn't. Allowing government to grant special favors to interest groups magnifies its power tremendously.
 
They don't have to cover birth control as long as they are not tax exempt anymore. Problem solved.
 
The equate IUDs and Plan B with abortion? Is that what I am reading?

The government should stay out of it, but their females employees should sue them, especially if they cover such things as Viagra.

No, what you are reading is that the HHS mandate lumps all methods of contraception under the same definition. Tyndale is opposed to any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

Which he equates to abortion, states that in your OP.
big surprise the man doesn't know what he is talking about.

The huge surprise is you wanting to impose your religion on other people.
 
No, what you are reading is that the HHS mandate lumps all methods of contraception under the same definition. Tyndale is opposed to any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

Which he equates to abortion, states that in your OP.
big surprise the man doesn't know what he is talking about.

The huge surprise is you wanting to impose your religion on other people.

Um, what are you even talking about?
 
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.

It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.

Anything that chips away at the power of the state is good news.

But that's the issue. It doesn't. Allowing government to grant special favors to interest groups magnifies its power tremendously.

You keep getting that backwards. The Constitution specifically tells the government that everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and that the government cannot interfere with those beliefs for any reason. Obama wants to impose his belief system on everyone, and the only way to fight back is by carving out exceptions on a piecemeal basis. Unless, that is, you know a way to go back in time and to slap some sense into Roberts.
 
They don't have to cover birth control as long as they are not tax exempt anymore. Problem solved.

They have never been tax exempt, and the judge still ruled in their favor.

Did you miss the part where I said the government shouldn't make them?
You obviously have no concept of sarcasm either.
I am saying women should sue their employer, with no connection to Obamacare.
 
Anything that chips away at the power of the state is good news.

But that's the issue. It doesn't. Allowing government to grant special favors to interest groups magnifies its power tremendously.

You keep getting that backwards. The Constitution specifically tells the government that everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and that the government cannot interfere with those beliefs for any reason. Obama wants to impose his belief system on everyone, and the only way to fight back is by carving out exceptions on a piecemeal basis. Unless, that is, you know a way to go back in time and to slap some sense into Roberts.

I couldn't disagree more. Equal protection and rule of law are the foundations of egalitarian government. Exceptions and carve-outs are how they divide and conquer.
 
If I was a woman who worked for a company that wanted to deny coverage for birth control I would be finding out real quick if they were covering other gender specific medication.
 
But that's the issue. It doesn't. Allowing government to grant special favors to interest groups magnifies its power tremendously.

You keep getting that backwards. The Constitution specifically tells the government that everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and that the government cannot interfere with those beliefs for any reason. Obama wants to impose his belief system on everyone, and the only way to fight back is by carving out exceptions on a piecemeal basis. Unless, that is, you know a way to go back in time and to slap some sense into Roberts.

I couldn't disagree more. Equal protection and rule of law are the foundations of egalitarian government. Exceptions and carve-outs are how they divide and conquer.

You still don't get it, do you? Our government is not egalitarian, and the tax code is deliberately designed not to treat people equally. We lost that battle when Roberts argued that Obamacare is a tax, complaining about that now is stupid, the only option we have left is destroying it by demanding that the government live with the fact that individuals who are smart enough to use the system against the government get their exemptions.
 
They don't have to cover birth control as long as they are not tax exempt anymore. Problem solved.

They have never been tax exempt, and the judge still ruled in their favor.

Did you miss the part where I said the government shouldn't make them?
You obviously have no concept of sarcasm either.
I am saying women should sue their employer, with no connection to Obamacare.

That was even dumber than I expected.
 

Forum List

Back
Top