Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Sandra Fluke: Today, the Supreme Court ruled in the nationally followed Hobby Lobby case. ... Why is birth control -- an uncontroversial form of care used by an astonishing number of women -- different from blood transfusions and vaccines, which many individuals have religious objections to? The fact is, itís not. This case sets a dangerous precedent and can be used in the future to go far past birth control.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The court cited the government's ability to meet womenís need for affordable access to contraception in other ways, specifically pointing to government provision of birth control as an option. But in the current reproductive rights environment, that will never happen. Opponents of reproductive rights are trying to limit access to comprehensive women's health care from all directions.

Comments

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

First off:

www.csectioncomics.com

Pretty much sums things up.

#1 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-07-01 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Sure, there are some extremists on both sides of any issue, but the vast majority of Americans don't care what you do as long as you're not asking them to pay for it. Once you insist on tax payer funding, then you have to measure your needs against the needs of other tax payers, and abortifacient drugs are low on most lists. Why is it so hard to accept? If you want something, pay for it!

#2 | Posted by arlo_sleepyhead at 2014-07-01 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you want something, pay for it!"

In order to acknowledge that Hobby Lobby was going to have to pay for services they don't approve of the premiums they pay now, after the SC decision, would have to be less than they were before the decision.
With their increased exposure for paying for women actually carrying and delivering babies do you actually think that is the case?
It wouldn't have cost Hobby Lobby anything to allow their women employees to have access to whatever family planning drugs that they chose to use.
This wasn't about money, it wasn't about religion. It was about an opportunity for conservatives to try to take down Obamacare through the courts and it isn't the last such attack. If you can't get what you want through democracy use the courts, especially when you have an ultraconservative majority.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Judicial activism: bad when the other party does it.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-07-01 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why is it so hard to accept? If you want something, pay for it!"

I didn't want a war in Iraq in 2003. Therefore, I shouldn't have had to pay for it.

#5 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-01 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

My boss shouldn't be deciding anything about my health care choices. This is anti-American.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-01 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You are exactly correct. However, your boss should indeed be able to be able to decide if he/she wants to provide you with paid health care and/or what part of that he/she wants to pay for.

If your employer chooses not to cover something can't you go to those great ObamaCare exchanges and get your own prescription coverage?

No one has an inalienable right to any particular fringe benefit in their job.

#7 | Posted by frugalscott at 2014-07-01 11:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Whips herself into a hyper-partisan frenzy divorced from statutory interpretation.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-01 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, thank goodness an expert has weighed in on the subject...Sandra Fluke, a woman (using the term loosely, pun intended), known for groveling for free...
Oops, better be careful. Hillary is running and nobody wants to be accused of misogyny.

#9 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-02 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope fluke gets knocked up and gets cramps.

#10 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-02 12:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Time magazine had her on the short list for 'Woman of the Year'.

I am dead serious.

What a joke!

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sandra Fluke flat out doesn't know what she is talking about.

Hobby Lobby still provides birth control the case was about abortion drugs not birth control.

Congress never passed any law requiring abortion drugs be provided, Obama created this order on his own and violated Federal law in doing it.

#12 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-02 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-01 10:15 PM | FLAG: You do know that Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the approved FDA approved contraceptives do you not? If they want one of the four that HB will not pay for then they just may have to actually put some of their own skin in the game like real women have been doing for decades.

Not implying that you are not a real woman; jus' saying'......

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-02 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

the case was about abortion drugs not birth control.

What they thought are so called abortion drugs.

That's only one layer in why this horrible decision to support those retards is a damned bad one. They don't even make a definitive medical argument for [...]s sake.

Congress never passed any law requiring abortion drugs be provided, Obama created this order on his own and violated Federal law in doing it.

They're contraceptives, stop being an idiot by calling them "abortion drugs".

Also, it took a case going before the SCOTUS to determine it was breaking Federal law...without the decision actually being based on it breaking federal law?!?! What retarded source do you get your info from?

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 01:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You do know that Hobby Lobby is providing 16 of the approved FDA approved contraceptives do you not?

And this is why social issues work so well.

Most can't think beyond a bumper sticker's worth of information.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 01:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

They don't even make a definitive medical argument for...

Why should they, the case is about statutory interpretation not medical judgment.

I'll assume the rest of your post is rhetorical.

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 02:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why should they, the case is about statutory interpretation not medical judgment.

I guess I assumed one's information on something factual like medicine actually had to jive with reality when arguing before a court (ie why intelligent design got its ass handed to it in PA).

Otherwise one could just poof any argument into existence and the court would have little leeway to rule against it.

In other words, if the basis for your interpretation has no grounding in reality it would follow that the interpretation also has no grounding in reality.

Then again, we are talking about a supposed freedom of religion case...

I'll assume the rest of your post is rhetorical.

Would a lower court not have overturned a blatant violation of federal law?

I take cases getting to the SCOTUS essentially as arbitration on which opinion of the law is correct, not that a law has been broken.

I would think if his claim was true that Obama's administration broke the law with the mandate, it would have been cut and dried and never seen the light of SCOTUS day.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer so please don't assume and fire away if it's incorrect.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope that the men who are the fathers of the children who result from Hobby Lobby's choice not to provide certain birth control products don't mind paying child support for the next 18 years. But hey, cheer up guys, this attack on Obamacare probably will slightly reduce the glow for the future ex-President's legacy. In truth, that is really all this case was about from the start, hope it is worth it to you as you make out those big checks every month.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-02 06:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Who wants to bet that some enterprising pharmaceutical company is going to take advantage of this golden opportunity to produce an over-the-counter FDA approved birth control pill and make themselves a ton of money.

Identify a need and fill it = Ka-ching!

#19 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-07-02 07:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

It wouldn't have cost Hobby Lobby anything to allow their women employees to have access to whatever family planning drugs that they chose to use.

Family planning drugs? Planning involves a PLAN. Forgoing use of any of the other 16 available and covered prophylactics, having unprotected sex and then taking a morning after pill when the guy you met two hours ago says "oops" is reactive...not proactive.

What they thought are so called abortion drugs. [.] They're contraceptives, stop being an idiot by calling them "abortion drugs".

The class of drugs is called abortifacients. By definition, abortifacients induce miscarriages. Contraceptives, by contracts, PREVENT pregnancy: "a device or drug serving to prevent pregnancy". If the egg has been fertilized, you're pregnant (as in the phrase "a little bit pregnant"), and thus contraception has FAILED and you are now terminating a pregnancy, which is an abortion.

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-02 07:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once you insist on tax payer funding…

"Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the ruling ... The government can pay for the benefit itself…"

Before the SCOTUS ruling it was included in the health care premium paid for by the employer.

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-02 07:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2014-07-02 07:36 AM | FLAG:

Get a life. These are people who think having an IUD is the same thing as chopping a just-delivered baby's head off. That's one of the options they won't cover - and go figure, the most effective.

I can't wait for the first Scientologist to start trying to control what their employees do with their healthcare packages. Or Jehovah's witness. It's going to be a hoot. And will make just as much sense.

#22 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-07-02 07:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

If this were a Muslim business, those lining up to defend Hobby Lobby would be screaming about how anti-'merican their decision is.

#23 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-02 08:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"slightly reduce the glow for the future ex-President's legacy."

Glow? You've got to be kidding if you think Obama's legacy will be seen as glowing.

#24 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-02 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope that the men who are the fathers of the children who result from Hobby Lobby's choice not to provide certain birth control products don't mind paying child support for the next 18 years.
#18 | Posted by danni

Thanks for the morning laugh.

#25 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-07-02 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once you insist on tax payer funding…
"Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the ruling ... The government can pay for the benefit itself…"
Before the SCOTUS ruling it was included in the health care premium paid for by the employer.

#21 | POSTED BY YAVa

Before HHS arbitrarily chose to make it mandatory (no such provision was included in ACA and a few Democrats have said they would have voted against ACA had this provision been included) it was up to the employer as to whether or not they wanted to choose a plan that included such a provision.

This is the problem with leftist legislation - it grants huge, arbitrary powers to a bureaucrat. This way, leftist ideology can be imposed on an unwilling populace when it never could have done so through the legislative process. That's why "HHS Secretary shall" was so prevalent in the actual law. The law itself is an eye-popping 2700 pages. But that is the tip of the iceberg. This law spawned roughly 20,000 pages of regulations.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Whips herself into a hyper-partisan frenzy divorced from statutory interpretation.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-01 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

She went off the rails a little at the end there. But if you actually read what she was repsonding to (If you want something pay for it), the first part of the repsonse was 100% accurate. Hobby Lobby isn't saving any money and their premiums are likely to increase.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope that the men who are the fathers of the children who result from Hobby Lobby's choice not to provide certain birth control products don't mind paying child support for the next 18 years.
#18 | Posted by danni

Poor Danni. It must suck to be so partisan and bitter that you wish harm on other people you don't even know just b/c your idol Obama got his @$$ handed to him the last few weeks in the SCOTUS.

#28 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-02 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't want a war in Iraq in 2003. Therefore, I shouldn't have had to pay for it.

#5 | Posted by DCTexan

National defense is the feds job called out in the constitution, mandating insurance coverage is and all the other social programs are NOT.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

They're contraceptives, stop being an idiot by calling them "abortion drugs".

#14 | Posted by jpw

And some claim they are abortion drugs, what makes you the expert?

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

National defense is the feds job called out in the constitution, mandating insurance coverage is and all the other social programs are NOT.

Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 09:54 AM | Reply

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

#31 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

The rest of Article 1, Section 8 spells out congressional powers, Larry.

The safety net just isn't there, nor can it be inferred.

While I am glad we have it and I think, ultimately, it's a good thing, it's blatantly unconstitutional.

Otherwise, they would have stopped right there, if "general welfare" was intended as a catch-all.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

National defense is the feds job called out in the constitution, mandating insurance coverage is and all the other social programs are NOT.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

What national defense goal was served?

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

The safety net just isn't there, nor can it be inferred.

While I am glad we have it and I think, ultimately, it's a good thing, it's blatantly unconstitutional.

Otherwise, they would have stopped right there, if "general welfare" was intended as a catch-all.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:08 AM | Reply

Unfortunately for you. You are absolutely incorrect. The general welfare part of Article 1 section 8 pertains to whatever the majority of congress feels necessary and prudent for the period of time in question.

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I didn't want a war in Iraq in 2003. Therefore, I shouldn't have had to pay for it."

This is deflection. There is clearly a difference between the government starting a stupid war, and companies not having to buy something they legitimately find morally and religiously abject. In the latter case, no one's rights are being compromised. Women can still buy it. The Hobby Lobby also does pay for birth control, they just don't pay for so-called abortion pills.

Honestly, I take offense that birth control is being singled out for "zero copay". My wife's OTHER health problems are somehow less important? Now we have to pay MORE for healthcare on top of our other expenses because some other people get birth control? It should be a copay like everything else. I have no clue why saving $15 on a pack of birth control is more important than the $180 I have to pay for chronic migraine medication for her.

#35 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-07-02 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unfortunately for you. You are absolutely incorrect. The general welfare part of Article 1 section 8 pertains to whatever the majority of congress feels necessary and prudent for the period of time in question.

#34 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

If that were true, they would have ended Article 1, Section 8 right there. They wouldn't have even bothered with all of the other stuff that followed that clause.

The first 150 years of governance and jurisprudence bears this out.

Regardless, the last 100 years has changed all of that and there's no going back. We are where we are.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

If that were true, they would have ended Article 1, Section 8 right there. They wouldn't have even bothered with all of the other stuff that followed that clause.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:18 AM | Reply

Each subsequent clause is a separate and distinct power congress has that does not pertain to the first. Sorry

#37 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Each subsequent clause is a separate and distinct power congress has that does not pertain to the first. Sorry

#37 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

In order for that to be true we have to pretend the 10th Amendment doesn't exist.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

In order for that to be true we have to pretend the 10th Amendment doesn't exist.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 10:30 AM | Reply

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[2]

Article 1 section 8 lists the powers the congress IE the United States have in a list form. Each line on that list is a separate entity unto itself. The 10th Amendment refers to what the States are allowed to do.

#39 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh the wailing of the liberals when someone else won't pay for their sh**.

#40 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-02 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.youtube.com

#41 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-02 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This is deflection. There is clearly a difference between the government starting a stupid war, and companies not having to buy something they legitimately find morally and religiously abject. In the latter case, no one's rights are being compromised. Women can still buy it. The Hobby Lobby also does pay for birth control, they just don't pay for so-called abortion pills."

I better case can be made for people finding the Iraq War morally and religiously abject than can be made for this contraception BS.

But it is a bad comparison because removing the coverage in question wasn't actually costing Hobby Lobby anything in the first place. Removing it will come with a cost. The whole "They were being forced to pay for it" meme is factually wrong.

#42 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by LEgregius

I told myself I would not post on this topic again no matter what was said, but I have to comment on what you said about your wife's medication and being upset that BC is being singled out for no co-pay. On one hand I can see your frustration since I am married and had a tubal ligation. I have absolutely no need for BC, so why should I pay for someone else to have it?

On the other hand I firmly back it. I want everyone to have BC at the lowest possible price and with the highest effective rate possible. We know that young couples are going to have sex. We know that unplanned pregnancies occur. These unplanned pregnancies cause financial hardship for young women all over the country, who then turn to welfare and we are paying for them anyway. And at a much higher price! Why should we deny a woman a $1000 IUD (which will last at least 7 years and has the highest effective rate)and end up paying her more than that every month for Housing, WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc? How does that even make sense? You cannot dictate someone else's sex life, and I dont even want to try. I just want them to have whatever protection necessary to lower the abortion and welfare rates.

#43 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-02 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope that the men who are the fathers of the children who result from Hobby Lobby's choice not to provide certain birth control products don't mind paying child support for the next 18 years.

#18 | Posted by danni

Don't be so damn stupid ddan, there are 16 left to use.

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some women can't tolerate hormones and thus the only viable birth control, other than just condoms, is the IUD which Hobby Lobby won't allow to be included in their insurance.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-02 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

All of her comments were untrue.

She either doesn't understand the case or she is lying on purpose.

If she is just ignorant she would retract or incorrect statements.

#46 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-02 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Five of nine decided that the Constitution trumps libbies' wants.

#47 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-02 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Five of nine decided that the Constitution trumps libbies' wants."

It's about time too.

#48 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

general Welfare of the United States

#31 | Posted by LarryMohr

It says the United States, it doesn't say the people of the US. By the way, US welfare depends on the southern border being closed.

#49 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

It says the United States, it doesn't say the people of the US. By the way, US welfare depends on the southern border being closed.

Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 03:04 PM | Reply

Our Capitalist society says otherwise.

#50 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unfortunately for you. You are absolutely incorrect. The general welfare part of Article 1 section 8 pertains to whatever the majority of congress feels necessary and prudent for the period of time in question.

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr

I see you are one of thoes 'living document' people and the constitution means whatever you want.

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see you are one of thoes 'living document' people and the constitution means whatever you want.

Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 03:07 PM | Reply

Yes Sir I am.

#52 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-02 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Re this lar.

www.lawandliberty.org

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a tempest in a tea pot. Fluke is a media hound, nothing more. My dear daughter is at this time without health insurance. The cost of her scrip, About $35.00 a month which I am happy to help out with. Hobie Lobby is a employer of clerk and stockers, mostly entry level jobs. Lots of housewives and students find work there. Like Chick'fila it is run by some Jesus freaks. Surprise! Most of the people I know love working for for them both. I will ask those on the other side of the issue, Where does the government's power end? What are the limits of it's reach? I guess if you were put in jail for homeschooling your kids, you might have a different opinion. I know that subject has never been broached on DR, like the IRS scandal or the Benghazi lies. But I guess the feeling is different if the boot comes down on your neck.

#54 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-02 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

An attack on women? I guess that starts to make sense when you find out who signed the bill into law that the decision was based on... hehehe

www.drudge.com

#55 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-02 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

i have trouble understanding why HL insists forcing their religious beliefs on the employees. It seems as if its a publicity stunt much like the crazy from PaPa Johns.

#56 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2014-07-02 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

i have trouble understanding why HL insists forcing their religious beliefs on the employees. It seems as if its a publicity stunt much like the crazy from PaPa Johns.

#56 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You have trouble because this isn't what Hobby Lobby is doing.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Left is horribly dishonest, but they have taken their dishonesty to new heights with the contraception mandate.

I find liberals to be very likeable and I have both friends and family members that I am close to who are liberals.

Lefties/progressives are a pretty disgusting bunch though.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Where does the government's power end? What are the limits of it's reach?"

Where Congress says it does. If you don't like what Congress decides then it is on you to change the Congress. I seem to notice most folks on your side of the argument get that, it's my side that is having a little trouble understanding that. If they did your side would not have a majority in the House and wouldn't be a threat for the Senate in 2014. I think you ought to hope my side remains so apathetic.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-02 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
James Madison.

#60 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-07-02 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

Alexander Hamilton

#61 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-07-02 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

IMO
The benefit should outweigh the burden placed upon the Nation.

Trillions in debt is not good for the general Welfare of the United States.

#62 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-07-02 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the effect of the SC ruling only takes benefits away from women then I think it is sort of silly to pretend it wasn't a paternalistic decision made by five Catholic men which is intended to limit the choices of women. I suspect that was the primal basis for it. It is just one more chapter in the right's war on women and is being cheered, coincidentally, by most right wingers.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-02 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder what's Fluke position on the White House's release of 5 Taliban leaders a few weeks back? The real war on women is being ignored by the WH for purely political reasons while this phony one is being manufactured by the WH purely for political reasons. FLUKE is a political operative with no real interests other than to further her own.

#64 | Posted by ghickey at 2014-07-02 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

i have trouble understanding why HL insists forcing their religious beliefs on the employees. It seems as if its a publicity stunt much like the crazy from PaPa Johns.

#65 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2014-07-03 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the effect of the SC ruling only takes benefits away from women then I think it is sort of silly to pretend it wasn't a paternalistic decision made by five Catholic men which is intended to limit the choices of women. I suspect that was the primal basis for it. It is just one more chapter in the right's war on women and is being cheered, coincidentally, by most right wingers.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2014

absurd..hyperbole...fear mongering....and wrong...but other than that..not bad...

and anytime a lefty brings out the 5 catholic MEN card.....it's time for a picture of the 1973 supreme court....NINE OLD MEN ....mmmm ..gee wonder if they made any decisions that affected women THEN ???

#66 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-03 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The libs won't be happy until dead fetus' litter the streets.

#67 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-03 01:49 PM | 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