|
A follow up!quote:Before a room full of cameras and reporters Tuesday, Dan Courtney of Hamlin became the first atheist to deliver a secular opening invocation before the Greece Town Board. A protestor.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
/Sigh/ at the D&C not being able to tell the difference between "principal" and "principle".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
What was the name of the drug included in the Hobby Lobby suit that hasn't been shown to abort a fertilized egg but still is considered an abortive (by Hobby Lobby, because reasons) anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:What was the name of the drug included in the Hobby Lobby suit that hasn't been shown to abort a fertilized egg but still is considered an abortive (by Hobby Lobby, because reasons) anyway? I think it's just the pill, unless you're thinking of Plan B.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:What was the name of the drug included in the Hobby Lobby suit that hasn't been shown to abort a fertilized egg but still is considered an abortive (by Hobby Lobby, because reasons) anyway? Plan B, Ella, copper IUDs and hormonal IUDs. The FDA labels for each of them say that they also prevent implantation (which was Hobby Lobby's belief), but many doctors say that the FDA labels aren't accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:What was the name of the drug included in the Hobby Lobby suit that hasn't been shown to abort a fertilized egg but still is considered an abortive (by Hobby Lobby, because reasons) anyway? Doesn't really matter since the court clarified the next day that believing any birth control at all are satanic whore-accoutrements is enough to ignore the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Plan B, Ella, copper IUDs and hormonal IUDs. FDA is going to be more accurate than "many doctors" 95-99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
It's in the same "may" category that just about all medicines are in. (That's why you go off medicines entirely when trying to get pregnant)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:FDA is going to be more accurate than "many doctors" 95-99% of the time. It's always been a hugely politicized issue, pro-lifers created a cloud of uncertainty and then demanded the label say "may cause abortions". Nowadays even the FDA is beginning to admit that science is not on their side. quote:The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
On the one hand, I hadn't heard of that case, which fits within the 1% "oh god please don't defund us" FDA-wrong-on-science scenario. On the other hand, it's the NYT, which has really execrable science coverage. Reading the article, their sources on both sides of the issue are horrible or nonexistent. The drug manufacturer didn't want to a possibility of inhibited implantation on the label? no poo poo. I especially love how they talk about "studies" without citing them in almost all cases, then diving into a he said she said report-the-controversy in the last couple paragraphs. They also don't discuss all the contraceptive methods at issue in the case, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Doesn't really matter since the court clarified the next day that believing any birth control at all are satanic whore-accoutrements is enough to ignore the law. Exactly. Hobby Lobby could block Pez if the geniuses running the company believe it causes an abortion (if Pez were a medication paid for by the insurance plan). The decision was based almost entirely on the assumption that belief trumps fact when it comes to saving your soul. anonumos fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Anyone have a link handy that explains or outlines the follow up "clarification" mentioned here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Anyone have a link handy that explains or outlines the follow up "clarification" mentioned here? http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider-impact-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/ There some lower court rulings that now need to be reviewed, and were not limited to the specific types Hobby Lobby was refusing to cover. So the lower court has just been told to re-do their work based on the logic in the Supreme ruling which consists of, as far as I can tell, "Catholics can do what they want as far as dealing with their employees' contraception, because we said so.". quote:In three cases in which a federal appeals court had rejected the challenges to the mandate, the new Supreme Court orders told those courts to reconsider, applying Monday’s decision. The companies or their owners had taken those petitions to the Court. There are also cases where the government tried to get companies to cover things, and the rulings where they lost were not ordered to be reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right? Heh. Opinion: Link Commentary: Bloomberg News posted:President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul suffered a potentially crippling blow as a U.S. appeals court ruled the government can’t give financial assistance to anyone buying coverage on the insurance marketplace run by federal authorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
I told you guys!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
I love the courts literally handing Republicans their 2014/16 playbook. It's on the verge of death! Vote Republican and kill it for good!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
So which specific judges were these?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I love the courts literally handing Republicans their 2014/16 playbook. That looks kind of like the 2014/16 Democratic playbook, too. Vote Democratic, and keep your health insurance. Vote Republican, and lose it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
The link won't load for me, this is a lower court, right? Not SCOTUS? Doesn't make much difference but as long as it hasn't gotten to SCOTUS yet I can still hope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:The link won't load for me, this is a lower court, right? Not SCOTUS? DC Circuit court. Two republican appointees voted to kill the subsidies, one democratic appointee voted to uphold them. It won't survive an en banc review, but then it's off to the Supremes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
So if the PPACA survives SCOTUS a second time, what will be the next attempt to legislate it out of existence through the courts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Radish posted:So if this survives SCOTUS a second time, what will be the next attempt to legislate it out of existence through the courts? Congress when Republicans get their majority, and over-turn Obama's veto. Other than that scenario, all they can do it pick off bits and push poor people into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
So hey, since the Pom case, have we seen Lanham Act actions against Cherry Coke? Seems like a ripe target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
So just how bullshit is the ACA ruling? Like it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit, but someone in the USPol thread was saying that laws are normally drafted to read 'the state or federal government' and that this shouldn't have been possible but was because of a drafting issue 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Magres posted:So just how bullshit is the ACA ruling? Like it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit, but someone in the USPol thread was saying that laws are normally drafted to read 'the state or federal government' and that this shouldn't have been possible but was because of a drafting issue Totally bullshit. It's a specious reading of the law that makes no sense given the statute as a whole, and you have to actually want ACA to fail in order to reach the conclusion that they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Totally bullshit. It's a specious reading of the law that makes no sense given the statute as a whole, and you have to actually want ACA to fail in order to reach the conclusion that they did. Yeah I wouldn't expect the ruling to survive en Banc or at SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I disagree that the majority's arguments are "specious." The key provisions read: 26 U.S.C. s. 36B(b)(2), relating to Assistance Credit Amount posted:The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of— 26 U.S.C. s. 36B(c)(2)(A), relating to Coverage Months posted:The term “coverage month” means, with respect to an applicable taxpayer, any month if— The plain language of these provisions apply only to the state-created exchanges. Congress could have simply used "exchanges" or "state and federal" exchanges if it wanted these provisions to apply to both state and federal exchanges. But it didn't. It had these provisions apply only to exchanges "established by the State under section 1311 of the <PPACA>." Whether there is sufficient evidence to overcome this plain language (as argued for by the dissent), I take no stance on -- mainly because I haven't the time at the moment to read through the full opinions. But the majority's arguments aren't total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
From the politics thread.Fried Chicken posted:So the 4th Circuit Court of appeals was also hearing on the subsidies
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I disagree that the majority's arguments are "specious." You didn't cite the language for the federal exchange. The "plain language" is only plain when you specifically cut out the context. You need to read the section it cites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I disagree that the majority's arguments are "specious." So what does section 1311 say about exchanges established by the states?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I disagree that the majority's arguments are "specious." Unless otherwise clarified in the law, "the State" can and often does mean the government as a whole. "The State" referring to the US itself is not unique to this law and if this ruling were upheld on the notion that "the State" means "one of the 50 states" it could gently caress with a lot of laws. If it meant individual breakdowns it'd be "a State" or "the States" as those mean more than one entity, not just the entirety of the government. Or maybe when someone's considered an "enemy of the state" it means they're actually only an enemy of certain states and not the country.  SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. (a) ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.— https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311 It exists to provide assistance to states to create an exchange. In the case of states doing nothing because they're spiteful fucks, it means doing everything for them. e: vvvv in Federal law "the State" can and often does mean the Federal government. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Magres posted:So just how bullshit is the ACA ruling? Like it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit, but someone in the USPol thread was saying that laws are normally drafted to read 'the state or federal government' and that this shouldn't have been possible but was because of a drafting issue It should have been drafted more clearly. Of course, laws have drafting errors frequently and courts often correct for them. The point I was making in the other thread is that "State", in federal laws, typically does not mean the federal government. That said, the reading they took was contrary to the way you would normally interpret that provision for other reasons (eg language in other parts of the bill, logic) so it's an incorrect reading of the PPACA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
That's fair. To be clear, I wasn't trying to like call you out where you wouldn't see it or anything - I'm not a legal scholar (far from it, I'm a Nuclear Engineer and nothing more than an interested layman in legal stuff) and wanted to hear what the SCOTUS thread thought because my version of a 'legal argument' is to google 'the state,' paste the results into something, and say 'DEFINITION NOUN 2 SAYS THE STATE MEANS A COUNTRY IPSO FACTO IM RIGHT NERDS' E: Holy hell did I actually use ipso facto in a remotely appropriate way? I was just typing off the top of my head and just threw some Latin legal-y sounding crap in on a lark. Then googled 'ipso facto' and it sounds like it actually works there Magres fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Unless otherwise clarified in the law, "the State" can and often does mean the government as a whole. 1). No. In Federal laws, it is almost never used in that fashion. 2) 42 USC 18024, part of PPACA defines the term state. 42 USC 18024 posted:in this title, the term 'State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. So it is both generally and specifically understood not to refer to the federal government. No one, including the federal government, made the argument that "state" includes federal. The argument was whether federally established state exchanges should be considered to be established by the federal government standing in for the states and therefore effectively established by a state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Specifically, if a state fails to fulfill its duty to create an exchange under 1311, the secretary creates that exchange for them. It's not a separate type of exchange: the Secretary is establishing the exchange for the State that failed to do so. The specific language is here: quote:(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.— "such Exchange" means that the State has a duty to make the exchange, and if they don't (because they cannot be coerced, legally) the Federal government establishes it on their behalf. It's not a separate type of exchange. It's the same exchange, established under the same regulations (and yes, you can have multi-state exchanges that aren't federal). It is abundantly clear to anyone sane that reads the entire thing what it means: it is strictly people who only read the carefully selected language that leaves out anything that doesn't support the conclusion, or people with a vested ideological interest in misreading it. We do not gut laws because of minor ambiguities like this one in any other context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So what does section 1311 say about exchanges established by the states? Section 1311 says how the individual states can establish an exchange, section 1321 talks about how the federal government can establish an exchange in a state if the state does not. The government's arguments generally amount to reasons why a federal exchange established under section 1321 qualifies as "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311", by text or by context. I personally think the government is right here but the other side's argument isn't as ridiculous as I thought during my initial reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Specifically, if a state fails to fulfill its duty to create an exchange under 1311, the secretary creates that exchange for them. It's not a separate type of exchange: the Secretary is establishing the exchange for the State that failed to do so. You misunderstand. Obama passed this law, therefore
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It should have been drafted more clearly. Of course, laws have drafting errors frequently and courts often correct for them. The point I was making in the other thread is that "State", in federal laws, typically does not mean the federal government. That said, the reading they took was contrary to the way you would normally interpret that provision for other reasons (eg language in other parts of the bill, logic) so it's an incorrect reading of the PPACA. Agreed; I think the 4th Circuit concurrence is correct: the statute means that federal exchanges get the subsidies. However, even if that's wrong, the statute's at best ambiguous, and Chevron deference applies, which means that the IRS's determination that federal exchanges get the subsidies also wins the day. I don't see any way to get to the "this statute unambiguously says that only state exchanges get subsidized."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Beamed posted:You misunderstand. Obama passed this law, therefore Also this law benefits the poor so
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
esquilax posted:Section 1311 says how the individual states can establish an exchange, section 1321 talks about how the federal government can establish an exchange in a state if the state does not. special snowflakes edition: it doesn't matter whether the other side's argument isn't ridiculous, because the fact that it's, in the plaintiff's best light, ambiguous, means that the IRS's interpretation of the statute controls because of Chevron deference quote:(1) "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:06
|
|