[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

[Gary Crabtree]

And does that part of your compensation cover every possible thing that
your heart could desire or are there drugs or procedures which are excluded?

g


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment compensation?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?
>
> Paul
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> *To:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious
> rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood
> people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's naive
> to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth
> control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that
> exercise of government power.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
>
> Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in
> rulings.  In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Great points, Rose, and I’m afraid I agree with your assessment.  Thank
> you for pointing out the obvious even if it’s uncomfortable some.
>
> It’s long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of
> ethics federal judges must adhere to.
>
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary Huskey
> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain
> philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that
> we trust and hold dear.  In light of the  Supreme Court decision supporting
> the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim
> to be at odds with their religious beliefs,  I wondered if the court was
> persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.
> Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that
>  uphold the doctrine of patriarchy,  i.e., do they attend churches that
> deny women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what?  Justice Roberts,
> Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic.
>
> In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973
> eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant
> churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion
> affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned
> gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church
> certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique
> privilege for male members.  And, what could possibly more be patriarchal
> than controlling women’s reproductive choices?
>
> Rose Huskey
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/7a0a7853/attachment.html>