In Supreme Court News
The court ruled that a company doesn’t have to pay for something it objects to on religious reasons. The press says it’s “contraception” but it’s only the ones that kill fetuses and not contraception at all. And I love watching the comparisons about how a corporation has more rights than a woman. You don’t have a right to something that must be provided to you by someone else.
The court ruled that people don’t have to pay union dues because they’re not in a fucking union.
And people whose votes count just as much as yours thought SCOTUSBlog was SCOTUS.
July 1st, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Wrong. None of the four forms of birth control at issue in the Hobby Lobby kill fetuses. There is some debate as to whether they prevent conception, or kill a zygote before implantation, but that’s it. And if there were any doubt the ruling applied to all contraceptives for religions that oppose them (e.g., Catholicism), today’s order removed that doubt.
July 1st, 2014 at 9:03 pm
And of course, the very same fair, unbiased and trustworthy Judge Debra Nelson that was on Zimmerman’s criminal case also presided over his lawsuit against NBC.
Of course it was totally a coincidence she released her judgment on the exact same day as the hobby-lobby ruling, right?
Squirrel!
July 1st, 2014 at 10:27 pm
At lunch today my coworker refused to buy, therefore I’m now starving and oppressed….
July 2nd, 2014 at 1:05 am
A list of contraception that Hobby Lobby provides for free to its employees (no co-pay, no deductible):
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
July 2nd, 2014 at 7:42 am
Nice invitation to reexamine a whole BUNCH of stuff wherever the phrase “Commerce Clause” appears.
July 2nd, 2014 at 8:38 am
Funny how the libbys all ignore that the corporations this applies to are more or less privately owned.
They really hate not being able to control through coercive means..
July 2nd, 2014 at 8:47 am
I like that this is opening the conversation to make it all over the counter. Why should I pay for your lifestyle choices? I have a right to own a gun, but my company refuses to buy me one.
July 2nd, 2014 at 9:48 am
I wonder how the reaction will be when the first privately owned company bans guns on company property based on their religious orientation. I can hear the gnashing and howling about violation of constitutional rights already.
July 2nd, 2014 at 10:28 am
@MU. That might actually happen if you could not ban guns on company property for ANY REASON AT ALL, ALREADY!!
July 2nd, 2014 at 10:58 am
@ Mu:
a) What Paul Kisling said.
b) There’s a big difference between someone being able to control what is brought onto their privately owned property and someone being forced to pay for someone else to be able to do something that they find morally reprehensible.
July 2nd, 2014 at 11:44 am
Actually, the SCOTUS ruled that in accordance with the law passed by the Congress during the Clinton Administration (RFRA), which Congress could have exempted the Obamacare law from, the government has failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard that the imposition on those with religious beliefs is the least burdensome. The government in their own actions, exempting non-profit religious organizations, has shown that there are less burdensome alternatives. Not to mention, if the government wants to give women free birth control, they could set up a program to do that without forcing those with religious convictions to pay for it outside their general tax obligations.
All the DemProgs had to do, if they had read the Obamacare legislation before passing it, was to include the following “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to any requirements imposed by this act.”
So the possibilities are:
They forgot
They were to stupid to realize
They were terrified of losing Dem support if they openly demonstrated that the law would attack religion
They purposely left out the language in an effort to try and moot the popular, bipartisan-supported, Democrat President signed, legislation protecting religious expression from wanton abuse by government
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:07 pm
That implantable rod sounds painful.
I think I would take a pass on that procedure, whether it’s free or something I would have to pay for.
July 2nd, 2014 at 10:32 pm
So should a pacifist company owner have to provide me a gun for self-defense while working for them? It’s an enumerated right.
July 3rd, 2014 at 1:27 am
@Ron. Nope. He would only have to provide a pacifier.