Discussion for article #224839
…waiting for the all-male, catholic position on this legislation…oh wait…nevermind.
Good to see Nadler on this, he needs to be more active. I miss being in his district.
I believe that would be the missionary position.
Doesn’t matter if it gets filibustered or Boehner won’t bring it to a vote. At all. Dems just have to keep repeating “GOP opposes birth control” over and over. Rinse, repeat, then demand to know why their Republican opponent opposes birth control.
PS: It was difficult not to misspell Boehner’s name. The topic being what it is, and all.
They’re all conferring with Uncle Joe out at Petticoat Junction to get his take on all things wimminly. No cell or Innertubes access out there…
This is desperate Democrats trying to revert their imminent November defeat by rallying on nonsense. A morning after pill cost $35, how much is the copay for those who have it covered by their healthcare plan? Corporations are not deciding what’s best for women, women still can chose to get all the birth control they want and need. No corporation can tell a woman “if you use that contraceptive you can’t work for us”. This is crappy legislation that will go nowhere because it’s just plain stupid.
So is there going to be a “how” in this reporting, or are we just going to assume that congress can overturn SCOTUS at this point?
The activist judges on the SC did not decide this on Constitutional grounds.
This was decided strictly according to the asinine Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in the 90’s.
We have that poorly crafted law, passed almost unanimously IIRC, to thank for a number of ridiculous situations here in the 21st century.
Law of Unintended Consequences my ass; it would be nice if the fools in DC paid attention to what they are paid to do.
Sadly, DOA
No. You’re just plain stupid.
Congress can change any Supreme Court ruling they can get enough votes to change. It’s been done before.
If you’ve been keeping up, you would see that SCOTUS clarified that this ruling applies to all birth control and not just the morning after pill. Not to mention that many religious groups are not trying to apply it to whatever laws they don’t like. It also doesn’t take into consideration that many forms of birth control, particularly birth control pills, are used for more than just preventing pregnancy. And let’s not forget that since the republicans don’t want to raise the minimum wage, a person would have to work half a day just to be able to pay for their morning after pill. The cost is not the point, because not covering it doesn’t save HL any money. The point is health care, like annual leave, is a benefit and part of compensation. I can only imagine that you’d be up in arms if SCOTUS decided employers could get rid of all annual leave because Jesus only rested on Sundays. Wake up.
We need to hit them with the chair. 99% of women use birth control. Period.
The part that always goes unmentioned when discussing the ins and outs of this ridiculous foofaraw is the part that really shows how the Catholic Five deliberately misinterpreted the ACA to make the RFRA fit the case.
Nowhere in the ACA does the law require Hobby Lobby—or any other corporation—to offer birth control to its employees.
The ACA requires insurance companies to offer every BC method approved by the FDA, with no co-pay, to every insured female.
If Hobby Lobby doesn’t want its employees to have this particular benefit, it can cease offering insurance to those employees.
For the Court to deliberately misapply the law in this way is a Constitutional danger to the nation, and only serves to make the Court look less competent and more political than it already did.
Ideology and a healthy dose of corporatophila are much more important than competence if you’re a conservative.
“It would overturn the 5-4 Court decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits closely held corporations with religious owners to opt out of the birth control mandate.”
How?
Was the Hobby Lobby ruling simply an opinion on statuary grounds and not Constitutional ones?
LOL
That was what I was wondering, if the SCOTUS got to any Constitutional issue or if they ruled strictly on statuary reading. You seem to think they didn’t reach any Constitutional questions in their ruling. I’ll have to go back and re-read the opinion because I thought they did vis-é-vis the 1st amendment issue.
Links please.