Obama to issue Executive Order overturning SCOTUS

[Uncensored2008]

To lie and make shit up is not to "call out."

Stop saying things that make no sense.

The only ones lying are you leftists.

I've cited from multiple source, including the democratic party press. You leftists are having a collective meltdown because your assault on the 1st Amendment failed.

You've cited jack shit.

Liar.


Get out of thread before you get embarrassed and called out again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-order-overturning-scotus-2.html#post9359897

NBC - they are the official propaganda corps of your shameful party, nyet? All stories cleared by party apparatchiks before airing and all that, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The reversal of the SCOTUS ruling is known as a "reversal" among the sentient.

Obama believes himself dictator, unconstrained by any law.

Only SCOTUS can "reverse" SCOTUS.

You must not be among the sentient.


A legal executive order is not a "reversal".

No, and MITIGATE is defined:

transitive verb
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify <aggressiveness may be mitigated or … channeled — Ashley Montagu.

2
a : to make less severe or painful : alleviate
b : extenuate

So, your little tin god will "alleviate" the ruling by the Supreme Court that supports the 1st Amendment?

What does that entail, in your mind?

How will he "mitigate" the rights of people to follow the religion of their choice?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's amazing that women were able to get by before Obama became president.

How did you manage ladies ?

All this time I had thought women were independent and quite capable of getting by on their own intelligence and capabilities.
Obama and Dimocrats manage to shake me out of my delusion on a daily basis, and remind me what helpless creatures apparently you really are.

 

[Care4all]

Mitigate in this case does not in any way mean overturn. PERIOD

What is being discussed is whether the President can act on the SC's Decision, in having the gvt provide for the BC pills not covered for HL employees under the ruling. The ruling stated that the gvt may have an interest in covering such items, in these cases. This is already being done or in the process of being done, with the religious institutions of Faith, that have refused to pay for birth control for their employees with their health insurance coverage, the gvt and insurance companies came to an agreement not to make these institutions pay for the portion of insurance that covers birth control pills...or something like that...???

So this is what it appears to be about, regarding the mitigation of the problem that arises through the ruling...will the gvt provide for these people not being covered by the law due to the owner's religious beliefs?

This is not about over turning the SC decision silly ones!

 

[Uncensored2008]

he said nothing about "overturning" the supreme court. learn to read.

{Earnest replied: “We'll consider whether or not there's some opportunity for the president to take some sort of action that would mitigate this decision.”}

Deconstructing the White House's childish response to the Hobby Lobby decision | WashingtonExaminer.com

but if he gets around the rightwing ruling, i'm all for however he does it.

Yes, but you're an uneducated hack with no respect for the concepts of jurisprudence.

isn't that what the red states have been doing for years as far as roe v wade is concerned?

yes.

now stop whining.

Straw man failure....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am not the left.

Oh yeah, I see that sparky...

Why is only MSNBC reporting it..

Everyone is reporting it. Most Obamunists claim the Fox is lying, so i use the party press corpse to be a source that even the most insane leftist like Jillian will accept.

.oh, because they are butt hurt over the ruling! Keep on manufacturing scandalous nonsense...it makes you Teapers look pathetic.

Oh no...there is still a black President in the White House...you better build a bomb shelter, blackie is coming to get you.

Well of course, if only the incompetent ****** were white, I'd fully support his assault on the 1st Amendment and concentration of 1/6th of the economy in the hands of the central authoritarian state...

Yer right ******* brilliant.

 

[Nutz]

I am not the left.

Oh yeah, I see that sparky...

If it weren't for Teaper hate and racism, I would probably be part of that movement. Regretfully, the hate ruins that idea and the hate movement is destroying the GOP. Sorry you refuse to see how pathetically racist and nonsensical the Tea Party movement is. Teapers are destroying the GOP and true conservatism.

Why is only MSNBC reporting it..

Everyone is reporting it. Most Obamunists claim the Fox is lying, so i use the party press corpse to be a source that even the most insane leftist like Jillian will accept.

Ok, and TEAPERS are misinterpreting it to manufacture controversy

.oh, because they are butt hurt over the ruling! Keep on manufacturing scandalous nonsense...it makes you Teapers look pathetic.

Oh no...there is still a black President in the White House...you better build a bomb shelter, blackie is coming to get you.

Well of course, if only the incompetent ****** were white, I'd fully support his assault on the 1st Amendment and concentration of 1/6th of the economy in the hands of the central authoritarian state...

Yer right ******* brilliant.

Yeah, if he were white, there would be no Tea Party movement. All of the issues you pissants cry about today were present and possibly worst under past Administrations. You guys claim to be of Reagan thought, yet you ignore all of his principles. Why? Because there are no principles or belief system...it is simply and anti-black President movement derived of hate and racism.

 

[Peach]

Only SCOTUS can "reverse" SCOTUS.

You must not be among the sentient.


A legal executive order is not a "reversal".

No, and MITIGATE is defined:

transitive verb
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify <aggressiveness may be mitigated or … channeled — Ashley Montagu.

2
a : to make less severe or painful : alleviate
b : extenuate

So, your little tin god will "alleviate" the ruling by the Supreme Court that supports the 1st Amendment?

What does that entail, in your mind?

How will he "mitigate" the rights of people to follow the religion of their choice?

Mitigate is used in reference to the wokers or spouses denied the four "birth control" alternatives, READ what is written before REACTING. And for the robots, I do not disagree with the Court's holding, as Kennedy explained same, it is complex however. How many have actually read the case, and not just media reports?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mitigate in this case does not in any way mean overturn. PERIOD

What is being discussed is whether the President can act on the SC's Decision, in having the gvt provide for the BC pills not covered for HL employees under the ruling. The ruling stated that the gvt may have an interest in covering such items, in these cases. This is already being done or in the process of being done, with the religious institutions of Faith, that have refused to pay for birth control for their employees with their health insurance coverage, the gvt and insurance companies came to an agreement not to make these institutions pay for the portion of insurance that covers birth control pills...or something like that...???

So this is what it appears to be about, regarding the mitigation of the problem that arises through the ruling...will the gvt provide for these people not being covered by the law due to the owner's religious beliefs?

This is not about over turning the SC decision silly ones!

Nonsense.

First off, Hobby Lobby provides contraception. The claim otherwise is an obvious fraud from the agenda driven left. This issue is about abortion, and always has been.

Secondly, the federal government already funds Planned Parenthood, which provides free abortion and contraception, so it is illogical for Obama to claim that he will "act on his own" to do what already is done.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If it weren't for Teaper hate and racism, I would probably be part of that movement.

So that you could spread your own hate and racism?

Regretfully, the hate ruins that idea and the hate movement is destroying the GOP. Sorry you refuse to see how pathetically racist and nonsensical the Tea Party movement is. Teapers are destroying the GOP and true conservatism.

I'll tell you sparky, I see a lot of hate and racism - on DailyKOS, MSNBC, ThinkProgress, Alternet, Vanity Fair, etc.

But with the Tea Party, not so much.

Back in 2006, I was a solid supporter of the Tea Party, by 2009, the GOP had infected it, so it lost it's appeal.

Ok, and TEAPERS are misinterpreting it to manufacture controversy

Exact words.

Yeah, if he were white, there would be no Tea Party movement.

Yeah, that's what I used to say back in 2006, if only Obama were white, we would all support Bush and McCain opening the border....

All of the issues you pissants cry about today were present and possibly worst under past Administrations. You guys claim to be of Reagan thought, yet you ignore all of his principles. Why? Because there are no principles or belief system...it is simply and anti-black President movement derived of hate and racism.

Either that, or you're just a mindless bigot using your own racism to define others.

 

[Care4all]

Mitigate in this case does not in any way mean overturn. PERIOD

What is being discussed is whether the President can act on the SC's Decision, in having the gvt provide for the BC pills not covered for HL employees under the ruling. The ruling stated that the gvt may have an interest in covering such items, in these cases. This is already being done or in the process of being done, with the religious institutions of Faith, that have refused to pay for birth control for their employees with their health insurance coverage, the gvt and insurance companies came to an agreement not to make these institutions pay for the portion of insurance that covers birth control pills...or something like that...???

So this is what it appears to be about, regarding the mitigation of the problem that arises through the ruling...will the gvt provide for these people not being covered by the law due to the owner's religious beliefs?

This is not about over turning the SC decision silly ones!

Nonsense.

First off, Hobby Lobby provides contraception. The claim otherwise is an obvious fraud from the agenda driven left. This issue is about abortion, and always has been.

Secondly, the federal government already funds Planned Parenthood, which provides free abortion and contraception, so it is illogical for Obama to claim that he will "act on his own" to do what already is done.

Did you read the SC summaries...it's in there uncensored....when I have time, I will see if I can find it for you...but reading the summaries of the ruling would be beneficial for you as well....

AND, please NOTE, if plan b, the morning after pill is the equivalent of abortion, then birth control pills of any kind, are abortion pills as well. They BOTH do the precise same things in preventing pregnancy, they are the same drug, only plan b is a stronger dose.

-they both prevent the egg from forming,

-they both cause mucus to form preventing or slowing, the passage of sperm in case the egg is formed already

-they both thin the uterine lining preventing a fertilized egg from attaching, if by chance it makes it there.

they both are not 100% preventative unless taken as prescribed... if bc pills, the same time every day, or if the morning after pill, it is taken within the first 24 hours....

-with both the morning after pill and with bc pills, if by chance you do get pregnant while taking them, they DO NOT act as abortifacients.... the woman is and stays pregnant, these pills do not end pregnancies...they prevent them, most of the time, but not ALL of the time.

regardless, I am fine with the SC ruling....I don't agree with HL per say, because I disagree with them on their position with plan b, while not taking the same stance on BC Pills, when they do the SAME functions, and ARE the same hormone...

but as far as a family owned only corporation being allowed to object to something that goes against their religious beliefs, I'm ok.

 

[justonemorevoice]

Well said care4all!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you read the SC summaries...it's in there uncensored....

Yes it is, stating specifically that the ruling deals with abortificants.

{The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. }

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0

when I have time, I will see if I can find it for you...but reading the summaries of the ruling would be beneficial for you as well....

LOL

Well, okay then.

AND, please NOTE, if plan b, the morning after pill is the equivalent of abortion, then birth control pills of any kind, are abortion pills as well. They BOTH do the precise same things in preventing pregnancy, they are the same drug, only plan b is a stronger dose.

Well that's a diaper load.

I personally support plan b - but the claim that preventing fertilization is the same as killing the fertilized eggs is a foolish fabrication.

democrats made a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment - you must have grasped that it was a risky move. But leftists are arrogant and imagine that they have far more power than they do.

-they both prevent the egg from forming,

What an ignorant claim.

-they both cause mucus to form preventing or slowing, the passage of sperm in case the egg is formed already

-they both thin the uterine lining preventing a fertilized egg from attaching, if by chance it makes it there.

they both are not 100% preventative unless taken as prescribed... if bc pills, the same time every day, or if the morning after pill, it is taken within the first 24 hours....

Utter bullshit.

Traditional birth control works through regulating hormones and the menstrual cycle. The traditional pill does absolutely nothing to "slow sperm."

Plan B works as your cut & paste describes, but this is vastly different than tradition birth control works.

-with both the morning after pill and with bc pills, if by chance you do get pregnant while taking them, they DO NOT act as abortifacients.... the woman is and stays pregnant, these pills do not end pregnancies...they prevent them, most of the time, but not ALL of the time.

Plan b impedes a fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, it absolutely does end a pregnancy.

regardless, I am fine with the SC ruling....I don't agree with HL per say, because I disagree with them on their position with plan b, while not taking the same stance on BC Pills, when they do the SAME functions, and ARE the same hormone...

but as far as a family owned only corporation being allowed to object to something that goes against their religious beliefs, I'm ok.

As I said, I'm a fan of Plan b, but I support civil rights, so I support HL or any other employer to spend their capital as they see fit.

 

[mamooth]

What exactly do you think "mitigate" means?

Something totally different from "override". Any honest person would say the same. That excludes you.

President Obama could allow insurance companies to offer to pay for the contraceptive coverage.

President Obama could allow the feds to offer the contraceptive coverage.

Both of those options mitigate the damage resulting from the Supreme Court's decision, but they don't override it in any way.

This Supreme Court decision is so unpopular, it's like a gift from God in terms of getting Democrats elected in 2014. And conservatives are displaying so much vile sexism in their celebrations, and that's delivering even more votes. Thus, I'm thanking Uncensored and pals ahead of time for being so effective in delivering votes to the Democrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Something totally different from "override". Any honest person would say the same. That excludes you.

President Obama could allow insurance companies to offer to pay for the contraceptive coverage.

So the Court ruled that employers do not have to pay for abortificants - but your god could "allow" insurance companies to "pay" for the coverage and roll it into the cost the company pays?

Tell me, using all five of your brain cells, how is that not directly defying the court ruling? How is that not overturning the decision of the court?

President Obama could allow the feds to offer the contraceptive coverage.

The federal government already funds planned parenthood - which offers free contraception. So this obviously is not what the white house meant.

Both of those options mitigate the damage resulting from the Supreme Court's decision, but they don't override it in any way.

No, one openly defies the court order, and one does nothing at all.

Try again.

This Supreme Court decision is so unpopular, it's like a gift from God in terms of getting Democrats elected in 2014. And conservatives are displaying so much vile sexism in their celebrations, and that's delivering even more votes. Thus, I'm thanking Uncensored and pals ahead of time for being so effective in delivering votes to the Democrats.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, there is an online poll on DailyKOS, and everyone is against it....

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Care4all]

Did you read the SC summaries...it's in there uncensored....

Yes it is, stating specifically that the ruling deals with abortificants.

{The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. }

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0

when I have time, I will see if I can find it for you...but reading the summaries of the ruling would be beneficial for you as well....

LOL

Well, okay then.



Well that's a diaper load.

I personally support plan b - but the claim that preventing fertilization is the same as killing the fertilized eggs is a foolish fabrication.

democrats made a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment - you must have grasped that it was a risky move. But leftists are arrogant and imagine that they have far more power than they do.



What an ignorant claim.




Utter bullshit.

Traditional birth control works through regulating hormones and the menstrual cycle. The traditional pill does absolutely nothing to "slow sperm."

Plan B works as your cut & paste describes, but this is vastly different than tradition birth control works.

-with both the morning after pill and with bc pills, if by chance you do get pregnant while taking them, they DO NOT act as abortifacients.... the woman is and stays pregnant, these pills do not end pregnancies...they prevent them, most of the time, but not ALL of the time.

Plan b impedes a fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, it absolutely does end a pregnancy.

regardless, I am fine with the SC ruling....I don't agree with HL per say, because I disagree with them on their position with plan b, while not taking the same stance on BC Pills, when they do the SAME functions, and ARE the same hormone...

but as far as a family owned only corporation being allowed to object to something that goes against their religious beliefs, I'm ok.

As I said, I'm a fan of Plan b, but I support civil rights, so I support HL or any other employer to spend their capital as they see fit.

no my dear one, it is not different....they both have the SAME HORMONE, they both do the same things to prevent pregnancy...

How do birth control pills work?

-Birth control pills contain hormones that prevent ovulation

. These hormones also cause other changes in the body that
help prevent pregnancy. The mucus in the cervix thickens, which makes it hard for sperm to enter the uterus

. The lining of the uterus thins, making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it.

How effective are birth control pills in preventing pregnancy?

With typical use, about 8 in 100 women (8%) will become pregnant during the first year of using this method. When used perfectly, 1 in 100 women will become pregnant during the first year. To be effective at preventing pregnancy, the pill must
be taken every day at the same time each day http://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq021.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140701T1713193967

How Does Plan B One-Step Work?

Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:

• It may prevent or delay ovulation.
• It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.

It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining. Plan B (Morning-After Pill): Effectiveness and Side Effects

so, the argument that plan b, the morning after pill is different than birth control pills is simply wrong.

 

[Peach]

Only SCOTUS can "reverse" SCOTUS.

You must not be among the sentient.


A legal executive order is not a "reversal".

No, and MITIGATE is defined:

transitive verb
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify <aggressiveness may be mitigated or … channeled — Ashley Montagu.

2
a : to make less severe or painful : alleviate
b : extenuate

So, your little tin god will "alleviate" the ruling by the Supreme Court that supports the 1st Amendment?

What does that entail, in your mind?

How will he "mitigate" the rights of people to follow the religion of their choice?

Nothing of that sort has even been suggested; the action contemplated would address those forms of care the various employers refuse to provide. Boehner announced he was suing the President BEFORE Hobby Lobby, this will just be another Count.

 

[G.T.]

So him saying he would look to mitigate the effects of the ruling is the same as him saying hes going to overrule it? Not in the english language its not. Alarmist spin.

 

[Care4all]

Did you read the SC summaries...it's in there uncensored....

Yes it is, stating specifically that the ruling deals with abortificants.

{The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. }

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0

when I have time, I will see if I can find it for you...but reading the summaries of the ruling would be beneficial for you as well....

LOL

Well, okay then.



Well that's a diaper load.

I personally support plan b - but the claim that preventing fertilization is the same as killing the fertilized eggs is a foolish fabrication.

democrats made a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment - you must have grasped that it was a risky move. But leftists are arrogant and imagine that they have far more power than they do.



What an ignorant claim.




Utter bullshit.

Traditional birth control works through regulating hormones and the menstrual cycle. The traditional pill does absolutely nothing to "slow sperm."

Plan B works as your cut & paste describes, but this is vastly different than tradition birth control works.

-with both the morning after pill and with bc pills, if by chance you do get pregnant while taking them, they DO NOT act as abortifacients.... the woman is and stays pregnant, these pills do not end pregnancies...they prevent them, most of the time, but not ALL of the time.

Plan b impedes a fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, it absolutely does end a pregnancy.

regardless, I am fine with the SC ruling....I don't agree with HL per say, because I disagree with them on their position with plan b, while not taking the same stance on BC Pills, when they do the SAME functions, and ARE the same hormone...

but as far as a family owned only corporation being allowed to object to something that goes against their religious beliefs, I'm ok.

As I said, I'm a fan of Plan b, but I support civil rights, so I support HL or any other employer to spend their capital as they see fit.

here's what Alito said, and he truly is a socialist i suppose, especially when he suggests the gvt just buy every woman's BC Pills?

Alito notes that the Obama White House provided an out for nonprofit religious corporations. Instead of paying for birth control themselves, an outside insurance company can do it. Alito asks, why can&#8217;t this apply to the for-profit employers, too?

In fact, why can&#8217;t the federal government just pay? &#8220;The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers&#8217; religious objections,&#8221; he writes in the opinion.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration is trying to decide what to do now. "It is our view ... that Congress needs to take action to solve this problem that's been created and the administration stands ready to work with them to do so," Earnest told reporters

Supreme Court on Birth Control: What Hobby Lobby Ruling Means - NBC News

this is what the ''mitigation'' is about uncensored, now pretty please, just admit it....you bought in to the RW Hype without looking in to it yourself....we've all gotten caught up in it and all done it, from time to time