Forum Thread

SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 40 1 2 3 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Huffington Post, June 30, 2014: Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Delivering Blow To Birth Control Coverage

    The Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority ruled that private corporations like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraception coverage in their employees' insurance plans.

    "In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell that the Obama administration has failed to show that the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act is the "least restrictive means of advancing its interest" in providing birth control at no cost to women.

    "The opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.


    I suppose this verdict was not unexpected given the make-up of the court. It's just another in a long line of 5-4 decisions. The Bush legacy lives on.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Huffington Post, June 30, 2014: Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Delivering Blow To Birth Control Coverage

    The Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority ruled that private corporations like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraception coverage in their employees' insurance plans.

    "In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell that the Obama administration has failed to show that the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act is the "least restrictive means of advancing its interest" in providing birth control at no cost to women.

    "The opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.


    I suppose this verdict was not unexpected given the make-up of the court. It's just another in a long line of 5-4 decisions. The Bush legacy lives on.
    I always thought "the Hobby Lobby" was a sex joint who hands out these things. Sorry I must be mistaken; need new glasses I guess, ha, ha.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There's nothing like five old men using the 'religious liberty' argument to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

    This ruling is scary in the fact that a Court who is tasked with upholding the Constitution just ruled that the religious beliefs of a private person or company can be forced onto its employees. While this seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment to me, this activist court thinks otherwise. This is going to set up a slippery slope of everyone claiming religious freedom as the reason why they don't want to follow a variety of laws, as Justice Ginsberg wrote in her blistering dissent. I wonder which one will be next. My guess is for gay rights.

    You're right Schmidt. The Bush legacy will live on for decades to come unless we are able to get someone in there to tip the balance of the court to the left. If we don't, then I'm fearful this is just the beginning of the conservatives attack on women's rights. I just don't understand how anyone can be against letting a woman choose what to do with her own body. And I'm doubly confused as to why any male has the right to tell a woman what they can do with her own body. This court makes me sick.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Agreed. This was a questionable decision.....That is why we need some opposite views to balance the court.
    I was initially not happy about this ruling. Then I heard it explained on CNN.... Hobby Lobby is not refusing any/all
    birth control, just a couple of types. I believe one was the IUD and I know another was the Morning after pill.
    The IUD allows an egg to be fertilized but then doesn't allow it to find a resting spot in the uterus. That they consider
    similar to abortion. I personally think that they are crazy but at least employees can use one of many other types of
    birth control.
    Mixing religion, business, money, and females rights is a crazy mix where the losers are likely to be the women.
    The govt. has said they'll fill the gap to allow women to have needed coverage.
    I hope it adversely effects HL by having lot's of women getting paid for the costs of delivery, pre/post natal coverage,
    and missed work.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Boycotted HL (along with Monsanto and Whole Foods) none of them ever get any business from me.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The best thing to watch tonight is MSNBC. I always watch the losing side after a big political event/decision/election. MUCH better analysis, plus the whining, crying, wringing of hands, it's all very compelling.

    Fox was great the night that Obama was reelected. Rove was priceless.

    MSNBC after the Dems got a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterms.

    Fox was also wonderful entertainment after Obama's initial election.

    Bill Maher's show after Bush's reelection was one of the all time greats.

    Must watch TV tonight is MSNBC.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorry, I'm so disgusted with theses people I'm just watching Colbert and Stewart tonight (with a bit of PBS thrown in)!
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You're right, Stewart and Colbert will be funny.

    MSNBC will be funny, too, just not intentionally.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't see anything funny about five men dictating what millions of women can and can't do with their own bodies and allowing a privately held company to use religious freedom as an excuse to deny them access to that care. I see it doubly concerning that these same companies provide their male workers access to a host of things that women would never use, like penis pumps and Viagra. How they find that morally acceptable but refuse to provide their women access to the same type of services shows that this court is hostile towards women's rights. It's scary that we have a bunch of old men deciding what rights 51% of our country has.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jared you are absolutely right that there's nothing ..."funny about five men dictating what millions of women can and can't do with their own bodies"...

    I didn't say that and certainly didn't mean to imply that.

    What IS funny and quite entertaining is the talking heads and their guests and how they overreact to this ruling. I've already seen and heard some of it, and I'm sure there will be more tonight and in the days ahead.

    Let the entertainment begin...
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't know much about Viagra other than what the Ad merchants say it is and of course "men talk", and I am even more uninformed about a penis pump, good Lord that sounds like something from a porno store and not a medical device, but my point is this, does either of these two male sexual items prevent a birth or cause an abortion, if not then the comparison between the morning after pill and those 2 items is bogus.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: if not then the comparison between the morning after pill and those 2 items is bogus.
    It is not bogus whatsoever. A private company is now legally able to dictate what health care services their employees can receive. They have no problem providing services that any reasonable person can assume is voluntary to men, but then deny services that nearly every licensed OB-GYN deems is essential to women. What if a company owned by a woman decides otherwise? I guarantee you the Supreme Court would rule in a different way because five old men would never vote against their own interests. You may think its bogus because you're a man and are biased towards the things you're eligible for, but you are no doctor and have zero idea what you are talking about.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: if not then the comparison between the morning after pill and those 2 items is bogus.
    It is not bogus whatsoever. A private company is now legally able to dictate what health care services their employees can receive. They have no problem providing services that any reasonable person can assume is voluntary to men, but then deny services that nearly every licensed OB-GYN deems is essential to women. What if a company owned by a woman decides otherwise? I guarantee you the Supreme Court would rule in a different way because five old men would never vote against their own interests. You may think its bogus because you're a man and are biased towards the things you're eligible for, but you are no doctor and have zero idea what you are talking about.
    You are correct in that I am not a M.D. but when you made references to Viagra and something called a penis pump and compared them to a morning after pill, then of course it's bogus, but if you mean any and all contraceptive means then you are just a little off base, I thought the ruling was very narrow in scope and it only nixed the Morning After pill and some type of IUD device, is this correct, I am aware of Justice Bader's dissent ,but it is filled with a lot of "What if's and suppositions, I will wait until the Appeals are heard and read the arguments both pro and con before I believe the ruling is anything then what was ruled.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: You are correct in that I am not a M.D. but when you made references to Viagra and something called a penis pump and compared them to a morning after pill, then of course it's bogus
    What exactly is bogus? Who are you to decide what is and isn't medically imperative for a woman? You just stated you are no M.D. Multiple organizations came out and filed briefs saying birth control is medically imperative for women for a variety of reasons. Are you smarter than them?

    johnnycee Wrote: but if you mean any and all contraceptive means then you are just a little off base, I thought the ruling was very narrow in scope and it only nixed the Morning After pill and some type of IUD device, is this correct,
    You are incorrect. The ruling stated private companies can deny any contraceptive care they feel like.

    johnnycee Wrote: I am aware of Justice Bader's dissent ,but it is filled with a lot of "What if's and suppositions, I will wait until the Appeals are heard and read the arguments both pro and con before I believe the ruling is anything then what was ruled.
    You can read the full ruling HERE. I've actually taken the time to read the entire ruling and dissenting opinion.

    You do understand that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter or all things, right? There is no appeals process. There is absolutely nothing that can be done outside of new legislation or a Constitutional Amendment being passed that overrules their decision.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Look you spoke with your emotions when you compared Viagra and a penis pump with a abortions, and your letting your heart again override your clear thinking, the ruling clearly states it intentions as making this ruling limited in scope and it is not a doorway to banning birth control measure carte blanche, it says the morning after pill and IUD devices only, now if you want to what if and maybe yourself to an ulcer be my guest, as I said before, after the all the legal experts go over this ruling ,then we will see just how "Far reaching this decision" is.