Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Place your bets!

Quote:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take up a challenge from religious non-profit groups -- including the Little Sisters of the Poor-- to the Affordable Care Act and the requirement that group health plans provide a full range of contraceptive coverage to women at no cost.

It will be the fourth time the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to the signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration, and the second case challenging the contraception mandate. In 2014, the court ruled in favor of closely held for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby that objected to providing certain contraceptives.

Arguments are expected to occur during the March sitting. A decision would likely come in June of next year, right in the middle of the presidential campaign.

The groups argue that the contraceptive mandate forces them to either violate their religious beliefs by providing "abortifacients and contraceptives" or pay ruinous fines. They say that a so-called "accommodation" offered by the Obama administration meant to respect their religious objections is not good enough because it still makes them complicit in providing the coverage.

Pope Francis visited the Little Sisters of the Poor during his trip to Washington in September, which the Vatican described as a "sign of support" for the nuns in their challenge against the Obama administration.

Related: Little Sisters of the Poor wait for Supreme Court on Obamacare

"The Little Sisters spend their lives taking care of the elderly poor -- that is work our government should applaud, not punish," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "The Little Sisters should not have to fight their own government to get an exemption it has already given to thousands of other employers, including Exxon, Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, and Boeing. Nor should the government be allowed to say that the Sisters aren't 'religious enough' to merit the exemption that churches and other religious ministries have received."

In legal briefs, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues that in passing the Affordable Care Act, Congress determined that preventive services for women were "critical to improving public health" and that people were more likely to obtain preventive care when they did not have to pay out of pocket.

Verrilli notes the government has exempted houses of worship, such as temples, mosques and churches, from the mandate but it has declined to do so for non-profit faith based charities, and religiously affiliated educational institutions and hospitals.

Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.

Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women's Law Center, criticized efforts to curb contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

"Women deserve insurance coverage of birth control no matter where they work or go to school," Borchelt said. "It's unfair and harmful for some employers and schools to use their religious beliefs to deny women vital health care that also makes them more economically secure. The Supreme Court must stop these efforts to undermine women's health and ensure that women continue to have the seamless access to birth control that they are entitled to under the law."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By providing for the poor in this country they help keep in place the government and ideals that research, develop, and provide these aborifacts and contraceptives. There is no bottom floor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is one the Sisters should lose. Essentially, the government has given them an accommodation already. They don't have to supply coverage, they just have to fill out paperwork stating that they object, at which point coverage is picked up by their insurance company or a third party. Their objection is that filing the paperwork to object would somehow still make them complicit in supplying birth control and/or abortifacients. Which is of course ridiculous. It is quite similar to the Notre Dame case which the school has consistently lost at the lower court level.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've asked before and I still don't get it; how is contraception bad?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Place your bets!

Quote:
The Supreme Court announced on Friday ...



"Women deserve insurance coverage of birth control no matter where they work or go to school," Borchelt said.
I'm glad one side of the argument gets a personal quote from an interview.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
I've asked before and I still don't get it; how is contraception bad?

I do not hold these beliefs myself, to my knowledge Catholicism is the only major denomination that still teaches all contraception is a sin.

Their arguments boil down basically to this:

1) It is an obvious violation of natural law.

2)Several forms of birth control may be like chemical abortions. Aka if it causes a FERTILIZED EGG that was healthy and would have developed into a healthy baby without birth-control, it is morally the same as an abortion because life begins at conception.

3) It is a form of committing Onan's sin.

Personally I find justifications 1 and 3 to be non-compelling because I think they are refutable misunderstandings of scripture to start with.

Misunderstandings which while traditionally may have had some sociological value in the past, no longer hold any value our with modern technology and a more than sufficient "population".

If anything in the current world that is, I personally think having sex WITHOUT contraception is sinful if one is not willing and ready to be a good parent to any offspring that may result.


As for reason #2, since I personally find abortion to be abhorrent I personally am not comfortable with birth control which doesn't primarily work by preventing conception in the first place. Thus I was never willing to get an IUD for example. So reason #2 I at least viscerally understand. HOWEVER I still am not convinced that birth-control of that type is inherently sinful for everybody. But at least I Grok how it might be. And thus choose to personally err on the side of caution since there are so many clearly IMO non-sinful ones.


From a Catholic Answers website here is a snip on the Natural Law argument. There is a long detailed description of ALL the reasons the Catholic official position is what it is there if you really genuinely want to understand it you can read the whole thing for yourself.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Quote:


Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.


Again I think they are in error but I am not going to write up the reasons why because I don't think anybody here is going to find their reasoning on this to be compelling to begin with.

If I am wrong let me know and I will refute this point from my perspective.
7 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

They argue that the act of filling out the waiver form is an endorsement of practices that are against their religious beliefs. Basically, they think that checking a box "triggers" coverage so that "act" (of checking a box and filing the form to inform the government) is itself basically making them an accomplice to the contraception coverage. I'm not making this up. It's a ludicrous lawsuit. Basically, the government gives them an out, but they aren't happy unless they can completely insure that there is no coverage by the third party. I can't think why the Court took it other than maybe to have a contrasting case to their earlier Hobby Lobby case.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Deleted112516 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

They argue that the act of filling out the waiver form is an endorsement of practices that are against their religious beliefs. Basically, they think that checking a box "triggers" coverage so that "act" (of checking a box and filing the form to inform the government) is itself basically making them an accomplice to the contraception coverage. I'm not making this up. It's a ludicrous lawsuit. Basically, the government gives them an out, but they aren't happy unless they can completely insure that there is no coverage by the third party. I can't think why the Court took it other than maybe to have a contrasting case to their earlier Hobby Lobby case.
They took it because there was a difference of opinion in the appellate courts; you can blame the 8th Circuit in its stupidity for that.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
If they obey the Constitution it's a no-brainer -- should be 9-0 in favor of the Little Sisters.

Given the partisanship on the bench however I suspect we'll get a 5-4 decision.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:


If they obey the Constitution it's a no-brainer -- should be 9-0 in favor of the Little Sisters.
You have a peculiar view of the Constitution.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bbenston wrote:
Deleted112516 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

They argue that the act of filling out the waiver form is an endorsement of practices that are against their religious beliefs. Basically, they think that checking a box "triggers" coverage so that "act" (of checking a box and filing the form to inform the government) is itself basically making them an accomplice to the contraception coverage. I'm not making this up. It's a ludicrous lawsuit. Basically, the government gives them an out, but they aren't happy unless they can completely insure that there is no coverage by the third party. I can't think why the Court took it other than maybe to have a contrasting case to their earlier Hobby Lobby case.
They took it because there was a difference of opinion in the appellate courts; you can blame the 8th Circuit in its stupidity for that.
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?

But I'm not surprised by the usual outcry against a religious people's unusual beliefs (even beliefs that are well known and well established).

I am surprised (well not really) about the lawmaker's shortsightedness in preempting these conflicts by having addressed these very serious issues ahead of time. It's been one 'Gotcha!' moment after another lately for people of religious values, and so many people seem quite happy with that and that makes me unhappy; just as unhappy as when I've heard people harshly criticizing LGBT people for their beliefs.

Also, I challenge you to get in contact personally with one of the nuns, or a cake baker, or even Kim Davis and ask them directly about their viewpoint before you continue to paint them as snarling, ravenous religious nutters; it's always easy to criticize someone's viewpoint when you don't have to look them in the face or hear their response.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
bbenston wrote:
Deleted112516 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

They argue that the act of filling out the waiver form is an endorsement of practices that are against their religious beliefs. Basically, they think that checking a box "triggers" coverage so that "act" (of checking a box and filing the form to inform the government) is itself basically making them an accomplice to the contraception coverage. I'm not making this up. It's a ludicrous lawsuit. Basically, the government gives them an out, but they aren't happy unless they can completely insure that there is no coverage by the third party. I can't think why the Court took it other than maybe to have a contrasting case to their earlier Hobby Lobby case.
They took it because there was a difference of opinion in the appellate courts; you can blame the 8th Circuit in its stupidity for that.
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?

But I'm not surprised by the usual outcry against a religious people's unusual beliefs (even beliefs that are well known and well established).

I am surprised (well not really) about the lawmaker's shortsightedness in preempting these conflicts by having addressed these very serious issues ahead of time. It's been one 'Gotcha!' moment after another lately for people of religious values, and so many people seem quite happy with that and that makes me unhappy; just as unhappy as when I've heard people harshly criticizing LGBT people for their beliefs.

Also, I challenge you to get in contact personally with one of the nuns, or a cake baker, or even Kim Davis and ask them directly about their viewpoint before you continue to paint them as snarling, ravenous religious nutters; it's always easy to criticize someone's viewpoint when you don't have to look them in the face or hear their response.
Civil or not, the blowback does come from decades/centuries of Religious Domination of the culture. It's a general truth that everyone likes to see a bully get a black eye, and no matter how 'little old sisters of the saintly order of the pacifist kitten lovers' the particular vehicle for the lawsuit is(and you know that the name was no coincidence) it doesn't change the fact that the dragon under the blanket is still the very much powerful Catholic Church(or protestant, since there's a lot of power there in the US)

Personally I don't hold ill will towards them, their view expressed in the lawsuit is just a non-starter. To accept it would be harmful to society as a whole, because hen you have to draw some kind of line of 'how many degrees of separation' become a valid remove, and any more than one is really arbitrary and begging litigation/re-litigation.

In short the only way to accommodate the 'little sisters' would be for there to never be a public healthcare option in the US. Like or dislike public healthcare you can't deny that to put that restraint upon government puts a specific religious view in primacy above secular law.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?
Bully ?? You have a warped view of what bullying is. All they have to do to be exempt from providing coverage they find abhorrent is to file paperwork for an exemption. Only in right wing circles and their imaginary "war on Christians" rhetoric could allowing an exemption actually be seen as bullying.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jonb wrote:
Quote:
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?
Bully ?? You have a warped view of what bullying is. All they have to do to be exempt from providing coverage they find abhorrent is to file paperwork for an exemption. Only in right wing circles and their imaginary "war on Christians" rhetoric could allowing an exemption actually be seen as bullying.
To clarify - my 'bullying' statement has more to do with the reactions and comments to the case than to the government requirements themselves. People have become content steamrolling over other people's beliefs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


If they obey the Constitution it's a no-brainer -- should be 9-0 in favor of the Little Sisters.
You have a peculiar view of the Constitution.

As the Founding Fathers would say, thank you!


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


If they obey the Constitution it's a no-brainer -- should be 9-0 in favor of the Little Sisters.
You have a peculiar view of the Constitution.
As the Founding Fathers would say, thank you!

Ferret
Expand on your reasoning or GTFO.

arrrh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: Chemical EngineerMicrobadge: Coffee drinkerMicrobadge: Clojure programmerMicrobadge: Apple Cider drinkerMicrobadge: Control Systems Engineer
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

why would you think this has anything to do with judging the validity of the Religous belief?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Lynette. I understand better but still don't get it.

Quote:
1) It is an obvious violation of natural law.
Makes no sense to me either. It's a violation of natural law to use fire as a tool, to use the skins of animals to warm and protect yourself, to fly through the air, or survive in the ocean's depths. Humans have sidestepped nature for a long time, I don't see contraception being a reason for exception.

Quote:
2)Several forms of birth control may be like chemical abortions.
I could see this if it was more than 'may be'.

Quote:
committing Onan's sin.
Too silly for me.

I also agree that filling out an opt out form is not burdening them overmuch and really should be enough of a rebuttal of contraception that their hands should be metaphorically washed of the whole thing.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
bbenston wrote:
Deleted112516 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

If this line is accurate...

Quote:
Under the accommodation, a religious nonprofit organization must first notify the entity that issues its group health plan or the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a religious objection. After the notification, either the insurance plan or a third-party administrator becomes responsible for providing the birth control coverage directly.
That they only have to tell the government they have an objection and then the government or insurance company takes over providing the coverage, than I think they should lose the case.

If the issue is that the government gets to decide if they are "religious" enough... aka gets to kick it back to them if they don't meet some extra criteria, then they should win the case.

They argue that the act of filling out the waiver form is an endorsement of practices that are against their religious beliefs. Basically, they think that checking a box "triggers" coverage so that "act" (of checking a box and filing the form to inform the government) is itself basically making them an accomplice to the contraception coverage. I'm not making this up. It's a ludicrous lawsuit. Basically, the government gives them an out, but they aren't happy unless they can completely insure that there is no coverage by the third party. I can't think why the Court took it other than maybe to have a contrasting case to their earlier Hobby Lobby case.
They took it because there was a difference of opinion in the appellate courts; you can blame the 8th Circuit in its stupidity for that.
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?

But I'm not surprised by the usual outcry against a religious people's unusual beliefs (even beliefs that are well known and well established).

I am surprised (well not really) about the lawmaker's shortsightedness in preempting these conflicts by having addressed these very serious issues ahead of time. It's been one 'Gotcha!' moment after another lately for people of religious values, and so many people seem quite happy with that and that makes me unhappy; just as unhappy as when I've heard people harshly criticizing LGBT people for their beliefs.

Also, I challenge you to get in contact personally with one of the nuns, or a cake baker, or even Kim Davis and ask them directly about their viewpoint before you continue to paint them as snarling, ravenous religious nutters; it's always easy to criticize someone's viewpoint when you don't have to look them in the face or hear their response.
Because allowing your religious beliefs to trump mine -- especially when we as a society already had a say in the matter through legislation and repeated court challenges -- makes you a law of one, and I thought we dispensed with that.

Furthermore, saying that your religious beliefs are infringed simply by checking off a box on a form is, to me, fairly ridiculous on its face.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Sarxis wrote:
jonb wrote:
Quote:
What kind of judgments await those who bully and berate people with consciences shaped differently than theirs?
Bully ?? You have a warped view of what bullying is. All they have to do to be exempt from providing coverage they find abhorrent is to file paperwork for an exemption. Only in right wing circles and their imaginary "war on Christians" rhetoric could allowing an exemption actually be seen as bullying.
To clarify - my 'bullying' statement has more to do with the reactions and comments to the case than to the government requirements themselves. People have become content steamrolling over other people's beliefs.
You might try betting on a different pony then. Kim Davis probably has more of a lawsuit than the Little Sisters. They have an exemption, she doesn't. The moment that the Little Sisters decided it was more important to insure everyone in their organization didn't get insurance through a third party because of them filing for an exemption to provide it was the moment where they decided to pile their religious beliefs on others, rather than accept their government provided exemption. They aren't bullied martyrs.

You may as well go play your Survivor music for Kim Davis. Or you know, maybe pick your fights better? OR NOT!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Microbadge: I love DragonsMicrobadge: An African or European swallow?Microbadge: Titan fanMicrobadge: Red Dwarf fanMicrobadge: David A. Trampier fan


Government exempts 100 million from HHS mandate, but not the Little Sisters of the Poor

Rules for your friends, but not mine. The vengeful Leftist Obama era can't end soon enough.

http://www.becketfund.org/gov-exempts-100-millions-from-hhs-...

"HHS has exempted plans for big corporations like Exxon and Pepsi Bottling, huge cities like New York City and the world's largest employer -- the U.S. military -- are exempted.

The Little Sisters of the Poor have received widespread support in their case, including from a diverse coalition of religious leaders representing Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Native American, Catholic, Protestant, and other faiths as well as over 200 Democratic and Republican Members of Congress. More than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed  at the U.S. Supreme Court..."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice necro.

PS: Given that the military is well known for giving full coverage, doesn't that leave this chart (doubtless well sourced) as transparently misleading?
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls