Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 30, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees. The owners of Hobby Lobby, furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties and Christian bookseller Mardel argued that the Affordable Care Act violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

TFDNihilist

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and found, "The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Cool! The Bible says I'm allowed to own slaves and pork my daughters, I'm getting started today!!!

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Tis a sad day for America and especially women employees.

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

How much will their premiums increase?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

No dancing bananas?

#4 | Posted by homerj at 2014-06-30 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's a great day when the court rules in favor of liberty.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

It's a great day when the court rules in favor of liberty.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:01 AM | Reply

NOT when it violates the liberty of the women employees of said company. Then the right wingers abhor Sharia Laws.

#6 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

I bet hobby Lobby covers viagra.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-06-30 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#5 - Yeah, another 5-4 split along the ideological right/left divide. So are court decisions that don't lean in you direction still in favor of liberty?

#8 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-06-30 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Tis a sad day for America and especially women employees.

Yea, it sucks. Now they have to pay for their contraception on their own. Like everyone else..

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

NOT when it violates the liberty of the women employees of said company.

Cmon Larry. Me and you have been arguing about this for almost 10 years. No one has said women cant buy contraceptives. Companies just don't have to do it now. Nothing is stopping a woman from buying her own prescriptions with her own money. How is that stopping liberty?

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Ironic thing is Hobby Lobby supports CHINESE made goods and you know how the support abortions.

#11 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"liberty of the women"....birth control pills? "Sharia laws"?

our plan dropped chiropractic care (or most of it) coverage recently.

is that the same reduction for "liberty of women"?

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now they have to pay for their contraception on their own. Like everyone else..

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30

Where do you go for yours?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-30 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Cmon Larry. Me and you have been arguing about this for almost 10 years. No one has said women cant buy contraceptives. Companies just don't have to do it now. Nothing is stopping a woman from buying her own prescriptions with her own money. How is that stopping liberty?

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

If other FOR PROFIT companies have to provide these Birth Control methods then by god Hobby Lobby should as well.

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Oh my God. Like reallllyyyyyyyy? -Sandra Fluke

#15 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Just don't ever try to tell me again that it makes no difference which party our Presidents are members of. As if this wasn't entirely predictable. Most of us could even tell you what the vote would be and which Justices would vote to allow Hobby Lobby to enflict their idiotic religious beliefs on their employees.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Sure Danni. Just like Roberts and the tax thingy last time.

#17 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, now, the rights of the employer supersede the rights of the employees. Money over the many. Does the GOP not see how this will be resented at election time?

#18 | Posted by morris at 2014-06-30 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Where do you go for yours?

#13 | Posted by Zed

When I was young and needed it, I used to just....

eh, I might get a dump for that..

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just like Roberts and the tax thingy last time.

#17 | Posted by wisgod

So, did Roberts rule correctly on that tax thingy? In your opinion.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-30 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's a great day when the court rules in favor of liberty.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corporate personhood works against individual Liberty.

If they had argued against this mandate and won by other means, I really wouldn't care.

But a 2nd SCOTUS decision that affirms corporate personhood is just horrible for us as a nation - not to mention embarassingly out of touch with reality.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

I sure hope none of you who approve of this ruling won't mind when your employer decides that surgery, antibiotics, blood transfusions, etc. violate his/her religious beliefs.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | Posted by Danni

Of course it does Danni. It is a shame that both parties cant just follow the constitution as it is written, but sometimes you liberals have to be stopped from trying to change everything..

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I ponder if this was a Muslim owned business if the ones supporting this decision would be in support of it.

#24 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

David Gushee, an evangelical Christian professor of Christian Ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University, offered an extensive treatment of the case in the Associated Baptist Press in April. He examined the issue from the perspective of a Christian theologian, noting that any attempt to broaden the legal status of businesses to include religious exemptions -- however well-intentioned -- is inconsistent, dangerous, and unfair to other religious Americans.

"One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability," he writes. "Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, AND special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways." thinkprogress.org

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 8

I sure hope none of you who approve of this ruling won't mind when your employer decides that surgery, antibiotics, blood transfusions, etc. violate his/her religious beliefs.

If that's the case then:

1. We can find another job.

2. We can get our own personal policy that does cover it.

See how liberty operates?

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

So, now, the rights of the employer supersede the rights of the employees.

#18 | Posted by morris at 2014-06-30 11:

Yup. Personhood is extended to Hobby Lobby. And the nifty thing is, the company will never worry about having a baby.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-30 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

So, now, the rights of the employer supersede the rights of the employees. Money over the many. Does the GOP not see how this will be resented at election time?

#18 | Posted by morris

The GOP owns Hobby Lobby? I didn't know that.

#28 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Sure Danni. Just like Roberts and the tax thingy last time."

Occasionally Roberts throws a bone to the majority of the population then he goes back and makes 5-10 decisions that work to their disadvantage. It's politics and yes, the Supremes are a political body with a Republican majority. Roberts is Majority Leader.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Folks....calm down and look at the big picture. Obviously this ruling only applies to employers who are currently providing health coverage to their employees......which is a good thing.

worry about employers who refuse to do that before you cry your self into a frenzy over 1st dollar birth control coverage.

Save your disgust for employers who are providing no coverage at all before you cry about Hobby Lobby.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

And guys,

THIS ISNT CORPORATE. If you READ the opinion, it specifically states this isn't for corporations. It's for PERSONALLY HELD COMPANIES.

Please stop it with the corporate stuff. It's apples and oranges.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

So, did Roberts rule correctly on that tax thingy? In your opinion.

#20 | Posted by Zed

No, because that wasn't how the bill was written. nor sold.

#32 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Of course it does Danni. It is a shame that both parties cant just follow the constitution as it is written, but sometimes you liberals have to be stopped from trying to change everything.."

It wasn't liberals who recognized corporations as people, the decisions that did that undermine any claim by conservatives that they defend the original meaning of the Constitution. Preposterous and laughable.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I sure hope none of you who approve of this ruling won't mind when your employer decides that surgery, antibiotics, blood transfusions, etc. violate his/her religious beliefs."

good point. I wish this decision was over a more significant coverage than paying for birth control. something along the lines of what you posted.....but this was only challenged by Hobby Lobby and others because ACA mandated it.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

If that's the case then:

1. We can find another job.

2. We can get our own personal policy that does cover it.

See how liberty operates?

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:21 AM | Reply |

You've been working for the government too long, it seems. That "find another job" thing isn't what it used to be.

#35 | Posted by morris at 2014-06-30 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

I will never shop at Hobby Lobby again. Nor will a LOT of other people.

#36 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-30 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

And guys,

THIS ISNT CORPORATE. If you READ the opinion, it specifically states this isn't for corporations. It's for PERSONALLY HELD COMPANIES.

Please stop it with the corporate stuff. It's apples and oranges.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hobby Lobby is a corporation.

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That "find another job" thing isn't what it used to be.

Oh trust me, I know about that.

I will never shop at Hobby Lobby again. Nor will a LOT of other people.

Only crafty lefty's shop there. My wife goes there a lot. And you would be surprised how many people AGREE with this ruling. You should get out of your liberal circles sometime..

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

The GOP owns Hobby Lobby? I didn't know that.

#28 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:22 AM

No, but the GOP sure did nominate the 5 justices(lower case is intentional) in the majority. Never gonna vote GOP for Fed office, again. Ever.

#39 | Posted by morris at 2014-06-30 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Does this mean that every health insurance company has to break out the cost for birth control prescription coverage so the employer can take it or not?

the health insurance carrier can't monitor the ownership of every group customer to determine if they are eligible.....who's job is that?

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hobby Lobby stores and facilities are open for business every day with the exception of Sunday due to Green's religious beliefs. He wanted his employees to have more time to spend for worship, rest, and family time, even at the expense of lower profits.

What a great store..

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I can't wait until some religious extremist group decides that it's christian beliefs don't allow them to pay for chemotherapy or antibiotics.

#42 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-30 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Never gonna vote GOP for Fed office, again. Ever."

wow, you're going to join the ranks of Danni and corky and be a party line voter for life?

nice job......that's just what we need. more voters who don't care about issues or candidates or anything....other than a letter after the name.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"I can't wait until some religious extremist group decides that it's christian beliefs don't allow them to pay for chemotherapy or antibiotics."

Danni touched on that earlier.

How does a carrier strip that coverage out? my concern is about policy language.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can't wait until some religious extremist group decides that it's christian beliefs don't allow them to pay for chemotherapy or antibiotics.

Again, our freedom of choice allows that we can find other jobs or pay for our healthcare by buying private policies.

It's called CHOICE. FREEDOM.

I know you aren't used to anyone other than govt making your choices for you, but it's the way our country was founded..

Get over it.

#45 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability," he writes. "Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, AND special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways."

Tony.....another reason for establishing a corporation is for tax efficiency. just sayin....I agree with the author but technically a sole proprietor who has a group plan can have the same protection....so it's not fair to say that only a corporation can get this.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know you aren't used to anyone other than govt making your choices for you, but it's the way our country was founded..

Get over it.

Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:35 AM | Reply

Weren't you in the military?? Didn't the government make your decisions for you for a number of years??

#47 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is a conservative court and this is a conservative decision. Poor, low educated women working for low wages are limited on how they can get contraception. They should think before they decide to do the act that causes birth. Besides, when poor people have children, it creates more Democrats.

#48 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-30 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nuts

Power has been monopolized by the crazies and the criminals. Consistency and reason are out the window. It is ironic that those who scheme to unwind Democracy wrap themselves in the constitution. They can be only delusional or liars.

#49 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-30 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't the government make your decisions for you for a number of years??

Why you going so broad? And if I didn't like the military, I could have gotten out.

Like I said, find another job.

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Many of the same people who are arguing FOR the 1st Amendment right being stretched to protesting individuals seeking medical care at Planned Parenthood offices and places where abortions take place are also the SAME ones cheering this ruling that allows the religious beliefs of a small group of owners to override a duly passed law who's purpose couldn't be more clear:

Although the owners of these for-profit corporations oppose the contraceptive requirement because of their pro-life religious beliefs, the requirement they oppose will dramatically reduce abortions.

… Imagine a million fewer unintended pregnancies. Imagine healthier babies, moms and families. Imagine up to 800,000 fewer abortions. No matter your faith or political beliefs, our hunch is that we can all agree that fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions would be a blessing.


I think that every single poster who honestly believes that this ruling is right for this nation to henceforth give up the right to complain about the growth of the welfare state, and the need to provide public pre-natal and post-natal care for the millions of employees who will now have their contraceptive healthcare taken away from them by their employers.

There is a cost-benefit to every transaction and the SCOTUS just determined that the taxpayers will ante up for the sake of "closely-held PUBLIC corporations" personal religious views and the protection of their constitutional rights.

#51 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is ironic that those who scheme to unwind Democracy

We don't have a mob Democracy. That's your first error.

Find out what type of govt you live under and then we may be able to have a conversation.

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion on behalf of the liberal wing of the court.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law ... they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," she wrote.

The justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)."

www.reuters.com

nice headline, btw, TFD.

More judicial activism from the rwingers on this court. I think the Christian writer in the link TR posted at #25 nailed it.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-30 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why you going so broad? And if I didn't like the military, I could have gotten out.

Like I said, find another job.

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why I think it's funny the one who blames EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world on LIBERALS is pitching a fit about me going too broad. Funny dat be.

#54 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

This is going to lead to more unwanted children that, in the future, will have unfettered rights to acquire all the guns that they want. There's nothing worse than a maladjusted mental patient whose daddy didn't pay attention and whose mommy didn't care that is armed to the teeth.

#55 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-30 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

It may be a little bit funny when the insurance that Hobby Lobby provides to its employees goes up in price due to this decision. It is much more expensive to provide pre-natal services and then obstetrical care than it does to provide birth control. Those additional costs will have to show up in premium prices.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Will Hobby Lobby, because of their sincere religious beliefs which are so important to them, stop buying products from China where abortions are encouraged even forced? If not then they are incredibly hypocritical.

"Why China's one-child policy still leads to forced abortions, and always will"

www.washingtonpost.com

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Those additional costs will have to show up in premium prices.

Why? You mean the "Affordable" care act isn't affordable? And again Danni, Nothing is stopping these women from buying their own personal condoms or pills.

Everything doesn't have to be provided for everyone.

#58 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Back in the day (way back) I found it ironic that my health insurance covered unlimited abortions but not my monthly supply of birth control pills, $25.00 a month if I remember correctly. I wonder if it is still that way.

Anyhow, company offered insurance is a benefit, not a right. Go find a company and or agent that sells a policy that suits your needs.

#59 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2014-06-30 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

In the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an expansion of an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.

If this stands, then this isn't as bad as it seems on the surface, but this is also being challenged and, should it fail, then this is a bad ruling IMHO.

#60 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

technically a sole proprietor who has a group plan can have the same protection

Yes, on the side of insurance coverage, but the SP doesn't have many of the legal protections and benefits afforded corporations. That was the point. Incorporating protects the individuals who make decisions for the corporation from many personal legal actions against them because the corporation is viewed as a singular entity separate from it's owners. Now, the corporation is saying that it should be exempted from otherwise complying with laws that other corporations have to because of the religious views of INDIVIDUALS within the very same corporate structure. This is the disconnect.

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think this is just another way that the Partys are the same... oh, wait....

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-30 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

In the big scheme of things, I can see where this would be on top of the Liberals lists of grievences. Never take away anything they perceive as "free".

#63 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Boaz, (#52)

...the right wing is the mob, and 5 catholic justices are one part of it. Shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat while legalizing stealing by elites and imprisoning or executing the rest.

#64 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-30 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

In the big scheme of things, I can see where this would be on top of the Liberals lists of grievences. Never take away anything they perceive as "free".

#63 | POSTED BY WISGOD

No kidding. Everything is a 'right' to lefties these days and thus must be provided for free (ultimately paid for by productive tax-paying citizens).

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It is a shame that both parties cant just follow the constitution as it is written,
#23 | Posted by boaz

So you'd prefer to be 3/5ths of a person?

#66 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Unsurprising from people who can't think of health care as a right.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-30 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think companies should be forced to buy my lunch. I must eat every day. Why would they be able to get away without providing that basic need?

#68 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-30 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

nice headline, btw, TFD.
#53 | Posted by Corky

Wish I could take the credit, but it was RC's. Although I'm honored that about 90% of my stories make it to the front page (I have 2 now), he almost always changes my headlines. I'm usually too snarky.

#69 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No kidding. Everything is a 'right' to lefties these days and thus must be provided for free (ultimately paid for by productive tax-paying citizens).
#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 11:58 AM"

um..., like the employees of Hobby Lobby?

#70 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-06-30 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

So you'd prefer to be 3/5ths of a person?

#66 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

Why? Are you a slave owner?

#71 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-30 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61

Agreed Tony. it's a disconnect, at the very least.

Personally, I really don't expect many companies to hide behind this protection. It will likely not save any money in premiums (even increase them).

It appears this is about the morning after pill more than just plain ole birth control pills that have caused this challenge to ACA.

Going forward, I hope the court requires a very narrow definition of "closely held companies" because that seems like a very slippery slope.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd just like to point out that there are many Churches that are pro-choice and even more that are in favor of birth control being used.

#73 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65-#68

You two do understand that we're talking about healthcare that is earned through the productive labor of those receiving it, don't you? What exactly is "free" about it?

Are you always this contemptuous of how employees decide to spend their earnings? Every two weeks on my pay stub is a substantial amount taken away to partially pay for my health insurance. Why should my company have any say-so as to what coverages I desire if my labor provides BOTH ends with the means to pay for it?

#74 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Meanwhile, don't be surprised if this doesn't turn out to be a camel's-nose-in-the-tent situation. How long before Hobby Lobby (or similar, closely-held corporations) begin to dictate what their employees can or cannot do according to the owner's beliefs? Some may be delighted to have that exact situation occur, but that "sword" will cut both ways.

#75 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Uh-oh....

Closely held firms are those in which a small group of shareholders control the operating and managerial policies of the firm. Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held.

Read more: www.answers.com

This means 90% of all businesses in the US are now exempt. Big Red Flag problem!!!!

#76 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Going forward, I hope the court requires a very narrow definition of "closely held companies" because that seems like a very slippery slope.

It's not a slippery slope, it's an olympic luge run. And the worst part of it is that this decision will increase abortions, unplanned pregnancies, unwanted births, and utilization of publicly-funded services by those without the means to support themselves or their children, which are all opposite goals of the pro-life movement.

Ideologues are too busy cheering from one camp to notice that the result is deleterious to one of their other religious causes.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

I must eat every day.

Can you imagine the food you'd get from the government? 'Here's a slice of Spam and some govt. cheese.'

Oh sure, Filipinos can live off of it, but not the rest of us.

#78 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-30 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Sandra Fluke wanted free contraceptives because she had a mandate.

#79 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-30 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm curious how Hobby Lobby explained to the court that this violated their religious beliefs.

does it? does it really violate their religious beliefs? providing health coverage that includes the coverage for birth control?

what religion are these people? where does it say that in their bible or their doctrine or whatever in hell these folks are referencing?

I'm catholic.....as an employer this wouldn't violate my religious beliefs. I'm told that taking those pills would be a sin.....but not participating in a group plan that includes this coverage.

All it takes is for a family to just assert "this violates our religious beliefs" when I'm quite certain that in most cases....It doesn't.

"It's not a slippery slope, it's an olympic luge run."

well...I did say "very" slippery....LOL.

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you want to get down to brass tacks. Hobby Lobby's owners are in direct violation of Romans 13:1-7

#81 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Romans 13:6-7

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Whoever wrote that verse was a lawyer.

#82 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-30 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

gee liberals who don't understand that 'free health care' isn't 'free'...

and what an outbreak of constitutional freedom we've had lately....

wow..that's GOT to hurt...

lol

I think the sandra flukes of the world are going to find a way to get birth control on their own.

#83 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-30 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I doubt Sandra has much to worry about in terms of getting knocked up.

#84 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I doubt Sandra has much to worry about in terms of getting knocked up.

#85 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-30 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess employer-mandated health insurance doesn't really work...

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control.

Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd's Plan B morning-after pill, and ella, made by the Watson Pharma unit of Actavis PLC.

Shares in drugmakers that sell popular forms of birth control, including Actavis and Teva, were little changed in morning trading after the ruling.

A Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll before the ruling found a majority of Americans oppose letting employers, based on their religious views, exclude certain contraceptives from workers' insurance coverage.

The poll of 10,693 people asked whether employers should be able to choose what forms of contraceptives their health plans provide based on their religious beliefs.

Of those responding, 53 percent disagreed and 35 percent agreed. Of those surveyed, 12 percent said they did not know."

www.reuters.com

#87 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-30 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

and what an outbreak of constitutional freedom we've had lately....

Yea for Religious Freedoms!

My religion requires I consume as much cannabis as possible.

I am sure you will come out as strongly in support my Religious Freedoms when the time comes, too!

I think the sandra flukes of the world are going to find a way to get birth control on their own.

#83 | Posted by afkabl2

Does Hobby Lobby heath insurance pay for viagra?

Why can't the AFKbabbles of the world all pay for their own viagra?

There is something seriously wrong with you.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-30 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Corky,

90% of Dem votes would probably extend a welfare payment to the poor for the rest of their lives, that doesn't make it constitutional..

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will never shop at Hobby Lobby again. Nor will a LOT of other people.

#36 | Posted by moder8

Never shopped there ...never planned on it...but now I do plan on avoiding them like the plague.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-30 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Never heard of them before. Tons of free advertising and the pro-Life crowd will flock there.

#91 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Keep a lookout for fundraising numbers from Emily's List and Planned Parenthood over this ruling. The only way Democrats have a chance to save control of the Senate is to avoid the debacle from 2010 in which women were evenly split on party vote. If Emily's List and Planned Parenthood have banner fundraising weeks, that could portend a firewall that prevents Republicans from taking the Senate.

#92 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-30 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Are you a slave owner?

#71 | Posted by Daniel

Well, the Bible says I'm allowed to, so I'm thinking about it now that the SCOTUS has said that it supersedes US law.

#93 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, the Bible says I'm allowed to

Only if they are Mexican or Canadian. The Bible limits it to neighboring nations.

#94 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You two do understand that we're talking about healthcare that is earned through the productive labor of those receiving it, don't you? What exactly is "free" about it?
Are you always this contemptuous of how employees decide to spend their earnings? Every two weeks on my pay stub is a substantial amount taken away to partially pay for my health insurance. Why should my company have any say-so as to what coverages I desire if my labor provides BOTH ends with the means to pay for it?

#74 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You are conflating issues.

Your total compensation is negotiated between you and your employer.

This case was about government altering that arrangement.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#26
"If that's the case then:
1. We can find another job.
2. We can get our own personal policy that does cover it.
See how liberty operates?"

This statement is amazingly short-sighted and ignorant. It assumes that employees have equal power to the employers. That jobs are plentiful and one only has to look. It assumes that individuals can afford a policy on their own. Finally it assumes that everyone has equal abilities with which to look for new employment.

#96 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2014-06-30 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It amazes me that Citizens United gives a greater voice to non-citizens with bigger bank accounts.

#97 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Simply another reason and benefit of going to a single payer plan. Get companies out of the business of providing healthcare (will help small business whether they realize it or not) and join the rest of the civilized world.

#98 | Posted by rosemountbomber at 2014-06-30 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So now closely held Corporations can have religious beliefs?

Fine.
But I want close held Corporations with religious beliefs to lose their liability shield. If a corporation is no longer a separate entity from their owners in terms of religious beliefs, then it shouldn't be a separate entity in other regards.

So if I sue a closely held corporation and they lose, they can't declare bankruptcy and protect the owners. I should be able to sue right on through to the owners as well. I should now be able to go after their assets as well.

#99 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-30 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You are conflating issues.

Your total compensation is negotiated between you and your employer.

This case was about government altering that arrangement.

Employees do not "negotiate" over the health insurance provided by their employers. Employers choose it unilaterally except in the extremely rare cases where employees have the right to join in the choosing of said provider -- nominally only those employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement. The government only mandated that certain things be covered by said insurance so in return the employers could receive the tax and business advantages which GOVERNMENT affords them through the tax code, and so that government's "compelling interest" in making sure the employees are not left with coverage that isn't in the worker's (and public's) own best healthcare interests as defined by common sense and the experts in the field.

Now, a company can be a business and a person while enjoying specific protections pertaining to both at the same time including the right to exempt themselves from US law if it conflicts with ownership's individual religious viewpoint, even though religion has nothing to do with business in the public's marketplace.

#100 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

To me, the whole religious/contraception aspect of this case is of minor importance - just like most of the stupid wedge issues that our governmet uses to pull the wool over our eyes.

The idea that paper entity such as a corporation can have "sincerely held religious beliefs" or any other kind of beliefs is bizarre to me. It just has no grounding in reality. Horrible precedent to set that will have unpredictable consequences for us all, given how loony the "logic" behind it is.

#101 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So if I sue a closely held corporation and they lose, they can't declare bankruptcy and protect the owners"

you can sue the owners and the corporation itself. You can name the owners in a lawsuit. The owners are "insureds" as well as the corporate entity on their insurance policy.

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

you can sue the owners and the corporation itself. You can name the owners in a lawsuit. The owners are "insureds" as well as the corporate entity on their insurance policy.

POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2014-06-30 02:13 PM

Even if it is an LLC?

A limited liability company (LLC) is a flexible form of enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate structures. An LLC is not a corporation; it is a legal form of company that provides limited liability to its owners in the vast majority of United States jurisdiction

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Never mind my 103. I should have read it closer. Missed this:An LLC is not a corporation.

Nevermind.

#104 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The idea that paper entity such as a corporation can have "sincerely held religious beliefs" or any other kind of beliefs is bizarre to me. It just has no grounding in reality. Horrible precedent to set that will have unpredictable consequences for us all, given how loony the "logic" behind it is."

This^

Very well said Sully.

#105 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2014-06-30 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The idea that paper entity such as a corporation can have "sincerely held religious beliefs" or any other kind of beliefs is bizarre to me."

I'm concerned that the beliefs don't have to be real anyway. They can just claim whatever they want. That they don't have to be real religious beliefs...but rather just personal beliefs.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The activist fascists on the Supreme Court strike again! Sad day for 'Mercia .

#107 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2014-06-30 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#104

that's okay and I assume this protection can apply to an LLC as well as long as it's a closely held company.

But what about business partners, extended family businesses, etc?

how do they satisfy these definitions of terms like "closely held"?

IOW, does the entire Green family (who owns Hobby Lobby) have this religious belief?

All of them? did the SC ask all of them? it's possible that 10-20 different individuals own shares.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

A problem I see with "sincerely held religious beliefs" is that now we are also asking the courts to decide how sincerely they hold their beliefs. Do we wants courts judging the depths of our beliefs too?

#109 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

so if im a Jehovah witness and own a company i dont have to include blood transfusions or cancer treatment?

#110 | Posted by reupman at 2014-06-30 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

So if I am Athiest, does that mean I can do nothing for my employees based on my sincerely held religious beliefs?

#111 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

90% of all businesses in America are "closely held."

Closely held firms are those in which a small group of shareholders control the operating and managerial policies of the firm. Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held.

Read more: www.answers.com

This means 90% of all businesses in the US are now exempt. Big Red Flag problem!!!!

#76 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2014-06-30 12:13 PM

#112 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#111

yes.....but you'll have to pay a fine......

again, I don't get the "religious belief". participating in a group health plan is not violating a religious belief. taking a morning after pill might be violating a religious belief.

what if an insurance company said "there is no extra charge for this coverage and we will not reduce your premiums at all if you remove this coverage". the company can't claim they are paying for it if it's free.

I would like to see what religion they are talking about.

#113 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6: You so know Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for 16 of the 20 mandated types of birth control, right? They only objected to the morning after ones and the ones aborting the egg from attaching.

So, women of Hobby Lobby can still get their birth control, just have to think.

#114 | Posted by path at 2014-06-30 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm concerned that the beliefs don't have to be real anyway. They can just claim whatever they want. That they don't have to be real religious beliefs...but rather just personal beliefs.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

How could they be real? An abstract legal entity can't have beliefs in the first place.

#115 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1


They sort of do.

n the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an expansion of an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.

#116 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

An abstract legal entity can't have beliefs in the first place.

POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-06-30 02:29 PM

An abstract legal entity having an unsupported belief in an abstract religious entity and its abstract rules.

#117 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

n the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an expansion of an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.

Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:29 PM | Reply

So they will use taxpayers to pay for parts of their employee health care insurance benefits??

#118 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

So they will use taxpayers to pay for parts of their employee health care insurance benefits??

#118 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR AT 2014-06-30 02:31 PM

I don't know the details of how that works and that aspect is currently being challenged.

#119 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-30 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully, the court concedes it's the beliefs of the "owners" of such eligible corporations rather than the entity itself.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So they will use taxpayers to pay for parts of their employee health care insurance benefits??"

I think the insurance companies would do it for free, anything that gets birth control into the hands of potential mothers saves them money.

#121 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can't wait to see the reaction when muslim business owners demand their female staff wear burkas. OTOH staff morale will pick up at businesses run by rastas!

#122 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-30 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Sully, the court concedes it's the beliefs of the "owners" of such eligible corporations rather than the entity itself.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

But the mandate was on the corporation, not the owners.

How can shareholders and the corporation be the same entity for religious purposes but seperate entites when determining liability?

This is legislatiing from the bench.

#123 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

What I find somewhat amusing is that Hobby Lobby was only contesting abortifacients. The policy they offer includes coverage for up to 16 different types of birth control.

Had HHS operated with a bit more restraint, this case never goes before the court.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it lost on anyone else, that Hobby Lobby already offers contraception coverage? By that I mean if the employees take advantage of a benefit alreadry offered to them, there would be no need to use the 4 drugs a payor has an issue with.

#125 | Posted by txlibertarian at 2014-06-30 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had HHS operated with a bit more restraint, this case never goes before the court.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had the court just ruled that Obamacare was not Constitutional when the last case came up, I wouldn't have cared because Obamacare does seem like an overreach to me.

But the court acted without restraint in accepting this case, which clearly is based on conflated two seperate entities. A less activist SCOTUS would have rejected this case outright.

#126 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#123 Says exactly what I am thinking. This family wants to have their cake and eat it to.

#127 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-06-30 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.motherjones.com

#128 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-06-30 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So if I sue a closely held corporation and they lose, they can't declare bankruptcy and protect the owners"
you can sue the owners and the corporation itself. You can name the owners in a lawsuit. The owners are "insureds" as well as the corporate entity on their insurance policy.

#102 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Not sure you understand how the world works...

Corporations have a liability shield. You can't sue THROUGH the corporation to the owners. You can only sue the owners of Corporations and LLCs. That's the whole purpose of the entity.

#129 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-30 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

End the corporate person.

Anything less is meaningless posturing.

You either believe in government by and for the people or you don't.

#130 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-30 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow I am late to this party but just a few questions:

How can a corporation hold religious beliefs?
What makes a corporation "closely held"? I read the article but what I mean what if 5 funds hold 50% - is that still closely held?

And to continue down that path how long until some brainiac starts the Cult of the Dollar? The religion revolves around how money is holy and that it should not be wasted on employees. Therefore even if they employ a million people they shouldn't have to provide health care at all. Not to mention follow the minimum wage laws that are in place. And other such things...

This was a poor decision that came strictly down to politics. It embodies corporations with personal beliefs and values while shielding owners and officers which I find absolutely ridiculous. A corporation is an entity onto it's own that is on of the defining difference between things like sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs and Corporations.

Personally, I think we need to pass laws stripping some 'rights' from corporations period. The idea that a corporation is equivalent to a person is simply ridiculous.

#131 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-30 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, how unfair, Employer funded health care STILL pays for all birthcontrol costs except abortive ones.

That $10 a month personal cost is just so uncalled for.

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

#132 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bad day for baby butchers and public sector union scum. Good day for the country. I support a woman's right to choose.....what healthcare benefits she offers her employees.

Keep the rosaries off your ovaries? How about you keep your ------ out of my wallet.

#133 | Posted by FRED at 2014-06-30 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

So does this mean that an Atheist business owner can discriminate against Christians now?

#134 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So does this mean that an Atheist business owner can discriminate against Christians now?"

how would they do that?

#135 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#133 | Posted by FRED

I wish I could flag funny and Noteworthy..

#136 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bad day for baby butchers.... How about you keep your sn*tch out of my wallet.

The abject ignorance of some conservatives knows no bounds. You haven't thought this through, have you?

Although the owners of these for-profit corporations oppose the contraceptive requirement because of their pro-life religious beliefs, the requirement they OPPOSE will dramatically reduce abortions.

… Imagine a million fewer unintended pregnancies. Imagine healthier babies, moms and families. Imagine up to 800,000 fewer abortions. No matter your faith or political beliefs, our hunch is that we can all agree that fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions would be a blessing. thinkprogress.org


And also imagine millions of mothers and children not needing to use the safety net programs which all taxpayers support. But the state has no compelling reason to insist upon employee coverage because the religious views of the ownership are offended since their right to "free speech" is compromised by their employees earned right for the insurance coverage that they need? Right......

#137 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

their employees earned right for the insurance coverage

How is something that costs money a right?

#138 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-30 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

Medical care, or care of any type, ain't on the list. That does not mean such care would not be provided. Nor does it mean such care should not be provided. But it is not a 'right'.

#139 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

I don't know where right-wingers get this idea, but it's nonsense.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

How is something that costs money a right?
#138 | Posted by boaz

So then. No right to education. No right to a jury of your peers.
Hobby Lobby didn't have the right to sue since that cost money too.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#139 | Posted by USAF242
You think stone age societies had religious freedom?
Don't you also think the Muslims live in the stone age?
What happens when your brain tries to connect these dots?

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Health insurance companies tomorrow: "You see Hobby Lobby, it works like this: pills cost less than babies. So if I'm your health insurance company I'm getting ready to raise your premiums anywhere from 20% to 35%. So go ahead and hold onto your religious beliefs. Your insurance company is going to hold on to their belief that higher claims mean higher premiums. And good luck when you shop your coverage and tell any new carrier you don't want to cover contraceptives, but maternity coverage is okay. Think you'll get lower rates? Be careful what you wish for. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences."

#143 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-06-30 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#139
I'm sure in the stone age the people of the tribe were taken care of by the witch doctor. It was a society and in most cases dealt with these types of matters with a socialists attitude. The idea that everyone does everything for themselves and not the betterment of society seems to be solely an American idea within organized civilizations.

And by the way, who made the list?

#144 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2014-06-30 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy

Absolutely correct on no right to education.

But incorrect on fair trial. Fair trails could exist just fine at any level of technology. Same for religious freedom.

Again:
The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

Snoofy is an idiot that can't tell the difference between the words "could" and "always".

#145 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

USAF242, no right exists that doesn't impose a burden on others.
You simply don't understand what rights are.
Having vocal chords is not the same as having the right to freedom of speech.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology

Followed by

Snoofy is an idiot that can't tell the difference between the words "could" and "always".

I have a somewhat different suggestion as to who the idiot is here.

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#125
"Is it lost on anyone else, that Hobby Lobby already offers contraception coverage? By that I mean if the employees take advantage of a benefit already offered to them, there would be no need to use the 4 drugs a payer has an issue with."

What you don't seem to understand is that the majority owners of Hobby Lobby are not doctors, psychiatrist, or parents to all of their, of age, employees. So since when do they have a right, since you're so caught up on rights, to determine how each individual employee takes care of their body? Doesn't it say somewhere that you have specific rights, right up to and until it infringes on someone else?

#148 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2014-06-30 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey USAF242,
Could corporations like Hobby Lobby exist in a stone age society?
I'm guessing not, since corporations didn't exist until a few centuries ago.
Seeing as Hobby Lobby doesn't have a right to incorporate, what's your point of view on their continued existence?

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

The concept that all positive things are rights is foolishness.

Support, encourage and perhaps even fund good things? Sure (although be careful on funding). But 'good thing' does NOT equal 'a right'.

Rights exist independent of technology. Technology might affect how they are expressed, but not their existence (for example, the Freedom of the Press can only exist at certain technology levels, but it is ROOTED in freedom of speech.....).

The big flag to watch for to identify 'false rights' is when a 'right' has to be paid for by someone other then the person enjoying it.

A right to pursue and education is valid. Others funding that education can be ok. But such funding cannot be a right. Such funding is a public investment, not a right.

#150 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How is something that costs money a right?

#138 | Posted by boaz

Seriously?

Does "to secure these rights, Government are established among men" sound vaguely familiar at all?

All legally enforceable rights cost money.

Which is why the Constitution is not violated by a government which taxes and spends.

#151 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The big flag to watch for to identify 'false rights' is when a 'right' has to be paid for by someone other then the person enjoying it.

Remind us who pays the Supreme Court's salaries.
Was it Hobby Lobby?
No.
Therefore Hobby Lobby's right to sue is a false right.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do need to correct myself on one vital detail:

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

In most of my posts here when I've said "rights" I mean "Human rights".

'Rights' beyond basic 'human right' can exist. But if such right violate a 'human right', then they are invalid (for example, any 'right' where one person is forced to fund another person).

#153 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a huge defeat for Obama. I'm loving it.

#154 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-06-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Such funding is a public investment, not a right.
#150 | Posted by USAF242

You're closer than you think.
Rights are public investments.
Certainly it costs more for society when criminal suspects have a right to remain silent.
Certainly it costs more for society when a company like Hobby Lobby can use the courts to challenge a law.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

for example, any 'right' where one person is forced to fund another person

Such as a court system, like the one Hobby Lobby used?

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just because something is not a right does not mean it cannot be done.
Just because something is not a right does not mean government cannot be involved with it.
Just because something is not a right does not mean it cannot involve public funds (be careful however).

But just because something is seen as 'Good' and 'worthy of public funds' does NOT, absolutely NOT, make it a 'right'.

#157 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not sure you understand how the world works...Corporations havein a liability shield. You can't sue THROUGH the corporation to the owners. You can only sue the owners of Corporations and LLCs. That's the whole purpose of the entity.#129 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2014-06-30 03:32 PM | REPLY |

This is quite a statement, and if you are a small business owner and your attorney has provided you this information, fire them immediately if this is your currant understanding of how your business (llc / corp) structure is supposed to shield you from liability. Your personal assets may be in grave danger.
All corp - including LLCs - limit the liability of the owners to plaintiffs (usually creditors) and protects the owner (shareholders) assets, provided that those who control the entity (corp / llc) treat it as separate and distinct from the owners of the Corp. This involves following proforma activities to show the corps independence from the owner, activities such as having regular board meetings, election of officers etc. When these formalities are not followed the courts will allow a plaintiff to "pierce the corporate vail" to hold owners, officers and director personally liable. Brief treatment of issue can be found here.

www.nolo.com
33006.html

The bigger issue is not healthcare or birth control but why would the Owner of an LLC / Corp ( an amoral fictitious entity) be able to control the moral thought of that Corp as if it where the thoughts as an extention of the owner themselves yet enjoy the secular idea of asset liability protection? How do you impute morals onto an amoral fictitious entity that is designed to be separate from the Owners yet enjoy the Corp veil protection?

#158 | Posted by gybeho at 2014-06-30 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please note, I recognize that any existing state will always have at least a few citizens that will object to ANY public spending.

Obviously public spending needs to happen for a functional state.

(all this would even apply to a tribe of hunter gathers, even if they don't use modern money for funding...)

But such spending is not a right, even if it is inevitable to at least a small extent.

Much of this is why many conservatives call even a good government a necessary evil.

#159 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

But just because something is seen as 'Good' and 'worthy of public funds' does NOT, absolutely NOT, make it a 'right'.
#157 | Posted by USAF242

It also doesn't preclude it from being a right.
Listen: Rights are what we decide they are.
There are no "natural rights."
That language merely disguises an appeal to authority argument; if you read the Declaration of Independence the appeal is to the Creator. Hard to argue with that!

Regardless, the concept of "natural rights" as developed during the Enlightenment is a real thing, even if the rights themselves are ephemeral. Today this concept is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously public spending needs to happen for a functional state.
...
But such spending is not a right

Then the state has no right to exist.
No state means no courts, no courts means no (legal) recourse if you feel your rights are being violated, as Hobby Lobby felt in this case.

You really don't understand what rights are. Of course, you also don't seem to understand what government is, or what the Social Contract is.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-30 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, the concept of the state existed LONG before any modern ideas of good government. You're ideal liberal state is not the only possible state.

That the state itself might not have a 'right' to exist does not mean it 'should not' exist, and it provably does not mean it won't exist.

A valid state, and a hardcore conservative one, can exist just fine.

#162 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-30 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

For those of you who think this decision is great, I hope you never know somebody who suffers from polycystic ovary syndrome and can't get her insurance to cover it.

The treatment is an oral contraceptive. Now thanks to five justices on the Supreme Court, some workers can't get that covered under their insurance plan because Jesus.

So this is a victory for the right wing and untreated ovary cysts!

#163 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Poor Jesus gets blamed for all kinds of things that idiots attribute to him as theology.

He was the cool hippy guy who fed everyone at the concert, kept the wedding going with more wine, and hung out with poor people telling them to love their neighbors.

He wouldn't be allowed in any conservative gatherings these daze.

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-30 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

a hardcore conservative one, can exist just fine.

#162 | Posted by USAF242

Please give an example of one that exists or ever did exist.

#165 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-30 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:


The treatment is an oral contraceptive. Now thanks to five justices on the Supreme Court, some workers can't get that covered under their insurance plan because Jesus.

So this is a victory for the right wing and untreated ovary cysts!

#163 | Posted by rcade

So they have to go to Target and pay $9 a month. Cry me a river.

#167 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-06-30 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not a woman but I think this is unfair.

How in the world can we justify (for pleasure) -------- pills and not women's contraception.

Oh well.

#168 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-06-30 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

so let me get this......sooner now rather than later, employees of hobby lobby all over the country are going to get every sort of disease known to us and they'll start dropping like flies because of this...

#169 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-30 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#166

If it needs to be said, such sentiments are far over the top and not representative of the majority's feelings of those who oppose this ruling.
The companies have every right to the freedoms and protections granted them under our laws and Constitution.

But so should their employees have the same freedom and protections to make healthcare decisions for themselves and their families regardless of their employer's religious beliefs.

#170 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-30 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"polycystic ovary syndrome"

You have to take a morning After pill to treat that?

#171 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Vasectomies are also included in the ACA. Vasectomies also inhibit birth and stale sperm cells are allowed to die and be disposed of by the body.

This is not right.

#172 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-06-30 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

But so should their employees have the same freedom and protections to make healthcare decisions for themselves and their families regardless of their employer's religious beliefs.

#170 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

To a point I agree, so why did the Government mandate that the employer become involved?

#173 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-30 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#172 | POSTED BY FRESNO500

You would have a point except that Hobby Lobby covers a large number of contraceptives, they only have an issue with certain ones they see as abortion inducing. Vasectomies nor hysterectomies induce abortion so they are probably covered under the Hobby Lobby plan.

#174 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-06-30 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Im gonna start subsidizing the CCW fees and even 20% on new handgun purchases by my employees. By that logic every employer should have to same.

#175 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-30 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#174
Nobody can deny that sperm is alive.

They seem to condone killing this material.

#176 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-06-30 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress could alter or outright repeal the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' and easily undo this ruling.

This is a VERY narrow ruling; a ruling that allows for a legislative remedy unlike something like Roe. The problem is lefties don't like the legislative process. Lefties much prefer the regulatory apparatus and activist judges to impose their unpopular agenda items on an unwilling public by sheer force and coercion. This is precisely why any pushback, regardless of how narrow and limited, causes lefties to go all mental.

#177 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

So they have to go to Target and pay $9 a month.

Reality never seems to intrude on your world. The cost is far greater than that for the contraceptive that treats polycystic ovary syndrome.

#178 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-30 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

An IUD runs $500-$1000 and Hobby Lobby is against IUDs - for some reason which makes no sense. An IUD kills the sperm. It can also, in the rare cases where fertilization _might_ occur helps prevent the egg from implanting. If the egg doesn't implant, you can't call it ending a pregnancy (by definition). No pregnancy occurs. The principle function of an IUD, however, prevents fertilization.

Also an IUD is excellent in preventing ectopic pregnancies and reduces endometrial cancer.

There is no medical reason for Hobby Lobby's singling out these 4 contraception methods. There is no scientific basis for it.

What the Supreme Court has said is that if someone holds a "religious" belief "sincerely" then facts simply don't matter.

This decision appears to be a religious preference ruling:
Roman Catholics for (5):
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Samuel Alito

Agains (4):
Sonia Sotomayor - Roman Catholic
Elena Kagan - Jewish
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish
Stephen Breyer - Jewish

So we have all male Roman Catholics deciding for Hobby Lobby.

information on IUDs: www.webmd.com

#179 | Posted by YAV at 2014-06-30 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, the concept of the state existed LONG before any modern ideas of good government.

But did it exist in stone age technology tribes? Since that's where rights come from...

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is lefties don't like the legislative process. Lefties much prefer the regulatory apparatus and activist judges to impose their unpopular agenda items on an unwilling public by sheer force and coercion. This is precisely why any pushback, regardless of how narrow and limited, causes lefties to go all mental.

I would have expected you to be better than that.

#181 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-01 02:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

You would have a point except that Hobby Lobby covers a large number of contraceptives,

You keep squawking this as if it's a profound point.

It's irrelevant that they cover other contraceptives, that is if you want to see the forest for the trees.

#182 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-01 02:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

But did it exist in stone age technology tribes? Since that's where rights come from...

#180 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-07-01 01:47 AM | FLAG:

lots of gross contraceptives back then, with the favorite i think being goat/sheep intestinal lining tied at the end like a sausage... too tired for the google-fu though right now...

#183 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-07-01 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only rational human rights are the ones that could exist in a stone age technology tribe of hunter gathers (individual liberty, right to self defense, right to property, freedom of faith, etc....).

#132 | Posted by USAF242

ahh the sentimentality for simpler times with which rightwingers yearn for the past is a thing to behold, innit?

coulda', woulda', shoulda'....with the only minor caveat being that these concepts and categories of thought, let alone their codification, didn't exist until very recently, relative to the stone age. what a ridiculous misapplication of...well, just about everything.

what a missed opportunity, that some of these 'wingers weren't around to flourish during the cave man days. oh, well. they'll do their damndest to make sure we get back to that time, one way or another.

#184 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-07-01 06:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

16 of 20 forms are covered, the other 4 are still available- non issue, non story other than to rile up the lefts base

#185 | Posted by kersh at 2014-07-01 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If insurance companies can weasel out of paying for my MS DMD I don't see a reason they shouldn't be allowed to weasel out of birth control. You want to talk cost how about 4k a month but I don't see anyone bringing a supreme court case to argue my right to free MS DMD's.

False altruists piss me off.

Hobby Lobby per another thread will still be covering vasectomies. Trying to avoid covering IUD's under a moral guise while covering vasectomies is ludicrous.

False moralists piss me off.

#186 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-01 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Doesn't this violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment??

#187 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Watch out for the slippery slope! It would be awesome if a group of very wealthy Muslims bought out the Waltons, and then forced all of the female employees at Wal-Mart to wear burkas, because it is an abomination in their religion for women's faces to be seen in public. I'd love to see the teahadists on the SCOTUS wiggle out of that one! Many of you righties forget that there are more religions in this country than just Christian religions, and they ALL get equal protection under the law!

Because this is a narrow decision, SCOTUS has set themselves up as the arbiters of what is a valid religious belief and what is not. Now that Corporations can have religious exemptions, I can see a flood of cases in the next few years over things like taxes and government regulations. Ginsburg was right, SCOTUS has opened a huge can of worms!

Also righties, don't crow too loudly. Don't forget that Scalia and Kennedy are both 76, and likely will either die or retire while President Clinton is in office. Thomas will deflate once Scalia's hand is no longer up his ass in order to move his mouth. There's a good chance the court will swing way left, 6-3, before Clinton's 8 years are up! Then that court can begin to undo all the damage that this court is inflicting on working Americans and the poor. I remember how righties used to rail against activist judges. This court is the most activist in the last 30 years, but not a peep from the right, funny that.

#188 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2014-07-01 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

What bothers me most about this decision is that millions of Americans are relying on their employer for health insurance, and employers can now make medical decisions for those employees by choosing what is covered.

Health insurance should never have been linked to employers. That idea was terrible when it originated a half-century ago and it's terrible today.

#189 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Health insurance should never have been linked to employers. That idea was terrible when it originated a half-century ago and it's terrible today."

which is why I laugh at the cheerleading for legislation that has cemented that business model (along with insurance companies in the drivers seat) into place indefinitely.

Eventually, obamabots will have to admit they really only supported obamacare because it was Obama's.

#190 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

which is why I laugh at the cheerleading for legislation that has cemented that business model (along with insurance companies in the drivers seat) into place indefinitely.

That's not what Obamacare did it at all. By making it possible for Americans to obtain insurance directly without fear of losing coverage due to pre-existing conditions, it means Americans can leave a job without fearing it will mean they lose the ability to get insured.

Obamacare is a strong break from being dependent on employers.

It also establishes that being able to obtain health insurance is a right, not a privilege. That puts us closer to single payer universal health coverage.

Eventually, obamabots will have to admit they really only supported obamacare because it was Obama's.

Eventually you'll figure out what I and millions of others insured under Obamacare could tell you. It's a great law that means a lot to our health and financial security.

#191 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's gotten so bad I saw Sandra Fluke holding a sign that said "Will have sex for birth control." She looked frustrated.

#192 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-07-01 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

I hope this leads to further decoupling of insurance from employment. That would be a great boon to America. The only reason it's even a "benefit" is because of 1940s government wage controls forcing companies to use non-monetary compensation.

#193 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-01 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That's not what Obamacare did it at all. By making it possible for Americans to obtain insurance directly without fear of losing coverage due to pre-existing conditions, it means Americans can leave a job without fearing it will mean they lose the ability to get insured."

well, it did both....it has cemented that business model in place and it's helped Americans obtain insurance directly.

"Obamacare is a strong break from being dependent on employers."

you realize you are discussing this on a thread about employers having the right to strip coverages (vital coverages in fact) based on a whim....all made possible by a mandate in Obamacare.

"That puts us closer to single payer universal health coverage."

I'm still amazed at folks with high intelligence believing that going in the exact opposite direction of single payer universal health coverage is putting us closer to single payer universal health coverage. This is an example of partisan politics taking over people's brains.

"It's a great law that means a lot to our health and financial security."

I hope you're right. I'm glad many folks have signed up and hopefully it will continue to have good numbers....but I'm still skeptical that the premiums will remain affordable due to the adverse selection of those who have signed up.

#194 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

well, it did both....it has cemented that business model in place and it's helped Americans obtain insurance directly.

Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress got as much as they could get when they passed Obamacare. People who think they could have gotten single payer universal health care are out of their minds. Fortunately, that's covered under Obamacare.

you realize you are discussing this on a thread about employers having the right to strip coverages (vital coverages in fact) based on a whim....all made possible by a mandate in Obamacare.

What the hell? Obamacare did the exact opposite and required insurance plans to cover contraception. You're blaming the law for the Supreme Court deciding to rip that out because Jesus?

#195 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It would be awesome if a group of very wealthy Muslims bought out the Waltons, and then forced all of the female employees at Wal-Mart to wear burkas, because it is an abomination in their religion for women's faces to be seen in public."

When you think about it, if a business owner sincerely believes that jihad is a relgious obligation and also defines jihad the way that extremists groups do, why wouldn't this owner be allowed to do business with and otherwise use his company to support terrorist groups?

#196 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress got as much as they could get when they passed Obamacare."

I'm sure you are right, whatever. It's not my job to care about keeping political score. You must think it's yours.

"Obamacare did the exact opposite and required insurance plans to cover contraception. You're blaming the law for the Supreme Court deciding to rip that out because Jesus?"

stop being naïve on Obama's part. when you write laws, you think about what parts of the law that can be challenged and what parts won't. You also consider who you have on the SC when contemplating these challenges. Was it out of the question to assume that employers would challenge being forced to provide coverage for morning after pills, which many consider to be associated with abortion? And that this court would side with those employers?

you're pretending you don't know who is on that court and even worse, that Obama doesn't know who is on that court.

hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps it was an overreach to write the mandate as far reaching as it did to force employers to provide such coverage? Now we have a SC decision (that we wouldn't have otherwise had if not for the language in obamacare that brought us here) that is very troubling.

I'm in agreement that the court is wrong about this but I would have predicted this challenge and this verdict.

and Obama is not paying me a nickel to advise him.......

#197 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why do I have to pay a co-pay for the asthma medicine I need to live, and birth control is completely free?

#198 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-07-01 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps it was an overreach to write the mandate as far reaching as it did to force employers to provide such coverage?

Requiring health insurance plans to meet specific requirements wasn't overreach, it was the only way the law works. The whole law fails if you require insurance but let insurers scam the public by selling crappy, insufficient plans. So there had to be rules, and requiring contraception coverage is a good one.

"Because Jesus" is not a sufficient reason to let a company or insurer withhold coverage of any medicine.

#199 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

If nothing else this could go a long way for CSP (Child Support Prevention).

#200 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-07-01 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Requiring health insurance plans to meet specific requirements wasn't overreach"

The SCOTUS disagrees with you with regard to this specific requirement. Did you think you could just write any requirement into ACA and it would hold up or do you think there are lines that can be crossed that the SCOTUS will reverse?

""Because Jesus" is not a sufficient reason to let a company or insurer withhold coverage of any medicine."

Again, the SCOTUS has said otherwise. I'm not surprised they did. Apparently you are.

I'm quite sure the authors of ACA worked hard to ensure that as much as possible of the law would hold up to court scrutiny.

But on this requirement.......they missed.

#201 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Again, the SCOTUS has said otherwise.

So what? Maybe if we didn't fill the Supreme Court with Catholic males the 5-4 decision swings the other way. Do you respond to every Scotus decision by singing the praises of the majority? I'm guessing no.

#202 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-01 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

The whole law fails if you require insurance but let insurers scam the public by selling crappy, insufficient plans.

I love how liberals deem themselves to be the sole arbiters as to what constitutes adequate insurance.

You guys are SO smart! /snark

#203 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you respond to every Scotus decision by singing the praises of the majority?"

you can go back and read my comments on this decision. I disagree with it. I agree with Ginsberg and her position of the minority.

I'm pretty sure that legislation isn't written to merely get passed but to also hold up to court scrutiny.

A lot of ACA has successfully passed court scrutiny and the authors should be congratulated for it.

But this one didn't. When we examine the nature of the issue it wasn't a surprise to me, considering all of those catholic males on the court, that the court ruled this way.

#204 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I love how liberals deem themselves to be the sole arbiters as to what constitutes adequate insurance."

only because of who wrote it. it's partisan politics, as usual. Let's not pretend any of these guys understand anything about health insurance anyway.

So, by not covering the morning after pill, Hobby Lobby's health plan is a "crappy and insufficient" plan?

really?

#205 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, Eberly is right. Americans are superstitious selfish ------ and the Supreme Court represents that. This country got the ruling it deserves.

#206 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-07-01 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#206
Touche

#207 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-07-01 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It amazes me how horribly the media is reporting this. I watched Fox last night. I watched MSNBC. I wanted to see how the partisans would spin this. Neither side reported all the facts. My favorite was Alex on MSNBC at 4 who claimed repeatedly this covers all contraception and not, as the justices said, only the morning after pill.

Fox left out that "closely held firms" accounts for 90% of the businesses in America.

#208 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fox left out that "closely held firms" accounts for 90% of the businesses in America.

#208 | Posted by kanrei

I too tried to watch the news about it last night but I couldn't. The whole thing disgusts me.

If these people (hobby lobby and the gop who are pushing this) are religious and love Jesus and care about human rights and the health and dignity of women I cannot for the life of me understand how any of this crap Glorifies the Lord.

#209 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Women got the short end of the stick on this one.

#210 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-07-01 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well the poor women in question seem perfectly willing to violate the rights of the millions of aborted children.... bout time there was some slap back... It's weird how when a woman can't have a baby on her own that she can have one created in a dish and inserted into her and it is something precious... It is something that is alive from the first instant where there there is inception.... Then the Abortion lobby wants it the other way and it's not a human until it's at 4 months....

#211 | Posted by BLABBERMOUTH at 2014-07-01 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another argument for single-payer govt healthcare. Without the nonsense.

#212 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-07-01 06:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

ah yes....and we were reminded of a little something from one of the MANY unconstitutional changes in obamacare.....so OBAMA himself is at least partially one of the reasons this came about.........

17. Equal employer coverage delayed: Tax officials will not be enforcing in 2014 the mandate requiring employers to offer equal coverage to all their employees. This provision of the law was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but IRS officials have "yet to issue regulations for employers to follow." (January 18, 2014)

#213 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It amazes me how horribly the media is reporting this. I watched Fox last night. I watched MSNBC. I wanted to see how the partisans would spin this. Neither side reported all the facts. My favorite was Alex on MSNBC at 4 who claimed repeatedly this covers all contraception and not, as the justices said, only the morning after pill.

Fox left out that "closely held firms" accounts for 90% of the businesses in America.

#208 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-0

yep it's hard to get isn't it....as usual..the losers are the ones in a constant state of hyperbole and fear......

for instance, just heard a interview with HILLARY and she lied...and she exaggerated and as one pundit said....'was almost a clown act'......

anyone who says this is the right preventing women from getting birth control is repeating half truths and hyperbole..

#214 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

AND K MAN,....it just SO HAPPENS that right now on TBS is the seinfeld episode with '

"SERENITY NOW...........SERENITY NOW " !!!

#215 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

look at all these christian conservatives rush to support the supreme court decision to impose sharia law on america.

#216 | Posted by klifferd at 2014-07-01 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

hashtag sharialobby

#217 | Posted by klifferd at 2014-07-01 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

okay..it looks like we're into the 'silly part' of this discussion with post 216..

SO let's hear from the big dog himself...Bill Clinton on the subject..

fbcdn-sphotos-f-
a.akamaihd.net

#218 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

okay..it looks like we're into the 'silly part' of this discussion with post 216..

It entered into the 'silly part' the moment a no brainer decision (IMO) was turned on its head.

And no, I'm not one of those reactionary people who judge whether the court got it "right" based on what side "won" as I don't think these matters are concrete in being right or wrong, just majority vs minority.

#219 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I went back and found a column about this case written in March.

I found an interested quote from Scalia.

Hobby Lobby has grounded its claim in protections it believes it's entitled to under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law passed in 1993 to protect individuals from having their private rights trampled by the government.

A court decision in support of this claim -- holding that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs -- would be a major break with centuries of legal history, and a particularly egregious distortion of RFRA.

Congress passed RFRA in response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision that allowed the state of Oregon to deny unemployment benefits to two Native American men who were fired for using peyote -- which was illegal in the state at that time -- as part of a religious ceremony. The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, who argued that, "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The decision held that a person's religious beliefs are not sufficient grounds to break laws that are considered "neutral" or generally applicable, but Congress passed RFRA after many religious groups raised concerns that the ruling would infringe on the rights of individuals who belong to minority religion groups. It was supposed to be a safeguard against big entities (the government, for example) stomping all over the rights of individuals. Hobby Lobby is invoking it to do quite the opposite.

From www.salon.com

#220 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The comments on this thread strongly suggest a number of People here have not actually read the opinion of the court, especially given the fact both the opinion and J. Kennedy's concurrence advocate the government pay for the objected-to products directly, either thru the accommodation extended to religious affiliated non-profits or thru another program. The fact the White House could, this very minute, issue an executive order extending the accommodation puts the responsibility on the President. Why no such order has been issued is puzzling.

#221 | Posted by xuinkrbin at 2014-07-02 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

While the quote from J. Scalia is interesting, the text of RFRA does place a limit on the extent of religious exemptions. Therefore, Hobby Lobby's actions are not seeking "to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land", especially since RFRA was passed 20 years before the ACA; if anything, Hobby Lobby could be "accused" of seeking to have the pre-existing law, RFRA, enforced.

I also think the claim of "Hobby Lobby is invoking it to do quite the opposite" is incorrect because, if the congress wanted to protect only the rights of religious minorities, it knows how to write a statute to do so but it chose to not write such a statute not once but twice: in 1993, when RFRA was passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the Senate, and again in 2000 when the House and Senate voted unanimously to strengthen RFRA's protections.

#222 | Posted by xuinkrbin at 2014-07-02 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can anybody quote the Bible as to where it says anything about birth control OR abortion?

And please don't quote the Ten Commandments if you've evr supported any military action. Or the death penalty.

#223 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-02 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

okay..it looks like we're into the 'silly part' of this discussion with post 216..

It entered into the 'silly part' the moment a no brainer decision (IMO) was turned on its head.

And no, I'm not one of those reactionary people who judge whether the court got it "right" based on what side "won" as I don't think these matters are concrete in being right or wrong, just majority vs minority.

#219 | Posted by jpw at 20

there is no excuse for a comparison of this ruling and sharia law. Much like the disgusting people who are comparing it to taliban or the icis or what ever. All of that is a sign of a MINORITY in this country that are running scared.
this majority decision was based on a democrat passed law and one of the unconstitutional changes to aca means and EVEN HILLARY admitted in her last interview that this was one of those famous 'consequences' that democrats have often.

#224 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-02 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

and jpw...you quote liberals from a liberal site...okay, but the ruling stood in the eyes of the majority on the court. That wasn't a problem when Roberts destroyed health care, but it's a problem now.

I guess that works both ways at times, but it's always 'funny' to hear the left whine and moan about the rule of law when it's upheld and supported.......finally.

#225 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-02 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

AFK -

Bipartisan passed law, you despicable hack!!!!!!! Just look at #222)

#226 | Posted by CALIbertarian at 2014-07-02 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess that works both ways at times, but it's always 'funny' to hear the left whine and moan about the rule of law when it's upheld and supported.......finally.

Of course that's how you'd see it.

I have more fun watching the heads sway back and forth with the wind as to whether the court was activist, got it right ect.

And you're one of those swaying in case you were wondering.

#227 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-03 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort