Discussion for article #224561
EDEN FOODS. Glad to know where they stand. Iâll let them know where I stand. Its easy not to put their products in my shopping cart.
25 Likes
That didnât take long - Ruth Bader Ginsberg was so right about the broader implications of this decision (and it has only been 24 hours)
45 Likes
Sure. But it still doesnât apply to other legal medications or medical procedures, just birth control? I suspect the court will clarify how expansive this ruling is just about the time that people stop paying attention.
Better stock up on your medications now before your boss suddenly decides heâs a Christian Scientist.
10 Likes
The court already said it applies only to contraception.
I totally get that is what they said. (I am literate, thanks for your concern anyway.) Based on their ruling yesterday, that logic is not going to hold for long and they know it. Unless somehow the Supreme Court has decided that some religious objections to some medications are greater than other religious objections to other medications, and have also found a way to square this with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. They specifically mention that religious objection canât allow privately held corporations to deny coverage of vaccines, because vaccines are in the public interest, but this seems to indicate that the âpublic interestâ in this matter is arbitrary. If contraception is not deemed to be in the public interest, and therefore canât be mandated in insurance, what other medications do you feel could be seen as not being in the public interest while also going against someones professed âsincereâ religious beliefs? Insulin? HIV meds? Chemotherapy? Blood transfusions? Prozac? Lipitor? And the court has also ruled that itâs not an issue of whether or not contraception is in fact an abortifacient (itâs not), but whether these companies âbelieveâ them to potentially be abortifacients. Based on that ruling, do you you have faith that these companies wonât be able to get away with denying health insurance coverage to a wide variety of legal medications and medical services, based on their completely wrong belief about what these medications and medical procedures could potentially lead to or be used for?
Do you trust that Alito is writing his rulings in good faith? Best of luck with that!
39 Likes
Where are the chorus of Republicans screaming âactivist judgesâ now?
31 Likes
Well said. There are going to be reams of litigation asking to apply the same policy to other medications and procedures because their use interferes with âfervently heldâ religious beliefs. The SC provided no definition or way to demonstrate how an individual or corporation demonstrates their fervor, so this is an open door.
9 Likes
Yes, there will be litigation, lots and lots of it. Most of it based on people seeking religious exemptions. What we need is some clever lawyer to litigate that carving out an exemption that addresses only womenâs birth control is massively discriminatory to half of the American population. Such an argument wonât fly with this court, I know. But I can at least dream about such justice.
13 Likes
Is Hobby Lobbyâs clientele going to increase in Red States?
I thought of that as well - there is a discriminatory element to the courtâs decision. I share your dream.
4 Likes
Exactly, that supposedly ânarrowâ opinion got wide in a hurry!
9 Likes
And contraception is legally different from blood transfusions or any other medical procedure or product that people object to on religious grounds how, exactly?
This is just one element of how the Court has gone rogue and abandoned any pretence that it is making a ruling based on law.
18 Likes
This more reason to get your asses out & vote in 2014âŚ
13 Likes
Maybe someone in the progressive caucus could introduce legislation providing that any closely-held company that sues for a religious exemption abandons limited liability. It would be fun to watch all the republicans arguing that serving god and serving Mammon are the same thing.
13 Likes
This ruling only covers birth control. But it opens the door for someone to challenge everything else in religious grounds. And that is a big problem. Not to mention the conservative majority even agreed that the government had a compelling interest in including birth control but apparently not enough.
What this also does it probably points out that the equal protection cause will soon also apply to businesses, in the same way ti does for people. Then maybe right to bare arms, or form their own militias?.
2 Likes
How you can strike down centuries of legal precedent in order to allow one set of religious ârulesâ to dominate the ability of others to practice their own religious dictates is asinine.
Clearly some animals, or âclosely-held corporationsâ are more equal than others.
10 Likes
Fuckers. Sorry, but thatâs the only comment I have after reading this.
12 Likes
Only birth control? believe me, thatâs a pretty big deal to at least 1/2 the American population. I donât care if it spreads farther, what they did is bad enough.
Iâm never going to stop being mad about this.
9 Likes
I think pretty much everyone in the U.S. has a right to âbare armsâ â especially in hot weather. OTOH, the right to bear arms seems to be constitutional regardless if those bearing them are members of a militia (moreâs the pity).
1 Like