Please upgrade your browser to make full use of twiends.   chrome   firefox   ie   safari  
Abigail Arrington
Now, perhaps the proprietor of said system considers creating your own necessity a marketing scheme, but consumers not likely to be amused.
Irony: When the alarm system that allegedly monitors for fires is the cause of one.
It's only Monday, but by relevant indicators, the world is already mad. Most weeks, we make it to Wednesday before that happens. :-/
For folks still upset re: #HobbyLobby: 4 reasons the Supreme Court contraception ruling means less than you think
And, in other news, I am left to wonder... Why doesn't GM just recall all of their cars and get it over with?
But, in terms of the "War on Women" (very much ongoing), I think our bigger fight is to challenge the "studies" which denounce needed tests.
So, the outlying question is how far does the association b/w individual and an entity have to go for the entity to assume their soul?
Now, mind you, I don't like the idea that corporations can be "persons" in this or other contexts, but there is established law on that.
Also, it seems HHS missed one of the most compelling arguments that might've changed the outcome, which was challenging the sincere belief.
From a legal perspective, that made it very difficult for HHS to show other types of corporations could not have the same protections.
One of the biggest hurdles govt faced in defending the ACA regulations is that HHS had already carved out exceptions for non-profit corps.
To bring some clarity to the #HobbyLobby ruling, thought I'd outline a few things that bear emphasis and explanation --->
I very much like Ginsburg, but disagree that Court opened can of worms. Rather, I think Hobby Lobby did. Just give it time. ;)
So I'm guessing Hobby Lobby will be divesting itself of all sponsored benefits that support contraception, including 401k mutual funds.
And, if they ain't putting their money where their mouth (er I mean faith) is, they don't get past go. Should be challenged on that front.
So basically, Hobby Lobby could under SCOTUS decision opt out of contraception mandate, but to do so will require proof of religious belief.
The litigator in me, loves that retweeted article b/c it opens a whole new side to the argument. Standing can be challenged at any time.
'Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection'…
Retweeted by Abigail Arrington
Found myself singing that after someone said they thought I am crazy. To which I replied, "Which of my little voices are you?" :)
Name that tune: Yesterday's over my shoulder, so I can't look backward too long... :)
Seems to me the Zuck should have at least bought those folks dinner before he zucked 'em. :-/
Also, not a surprise and why I do not "Like" ---> Facebook prompts outrage with experiment on users via @WSJ
I say that as someone who's totally been a broke college student digging for change stuck in between the car seat. :-/
And, let's be real, birth control pills are $4 at Walmart or free at some clinics so they are accessible.