Independent Discussion Guidelines
Very narrow decision that allowed them to not pay for abortion drugs. This is not a "war on women" but a rational decision allowed under the 1st A.You folks need to get a grip.
sslocal (anonymous profile)July 3, 2014 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually the ruling is a Pandora's box full of unintended consequences.
Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)July 3, 2014 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Actually the ruling is a Pandora's box full of unintended consequences." -HG
Unintended by who? Certainly not Hobby Lobby, I'm pretty sure they would like to see Obamacare fall apart via court decisions.
Where in the Constitution does it say the government is supposed to provide health care? Not that the Federal Government follows the Constitution very well at all, but it's certainly prudent to challenge them as often as possible.
loonpt (anonymous profile)July 3, 2014 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
75% to 24% Hmmm? When will the Old Farts on the SC realize this is still a Democracy and not push down their Dictatorial decisions on the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY! Somewhere in the Constitution I believe to be some verbiage about separation of Church and State.
rblacumbre (anonymous profile)July 4, 2014 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
As far as I know that is all the Constitution says about religion.
billclausen (anonymous profile)July 4, 2014 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Even though I detest this decision and Sammy Alioto's BS opinion [see Nick's cool takedown of Alito in this paper], still rblacumbre, SCOTUS absolutely doesn't have to respect the overwhelming majority of public opinion on anything.
DrDan (anonymous profile)July 4, 2014 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand corrected billclausen you are right the 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Now I know why this is a "Do Nothing Congress" they only read the first 5 words.
rblacumbre (anonymous profile)July 4, 2014 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hobby Lobby gave all their employees access to birth control (I think 70 options) but on 4 that they deemed late term they denied because of their faith…
Now let that sink in.
What have you heard in the news?
Exactly, wedge issue, dog whistle response elicited.
The truth is too many people, men and women, are so irresponsible about protecting the the rights of the unborn (you should see a saline abortion, the fetus literally swims out of the embryo) that THEY THINK ABORTION IS A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL! NEWSFLASH LADIES (the selfish ones) IT IS NOT, IT IS MURDER!
The girls that use abortion as a method of birth control are toads and need to be called out, be responsible for the Lord's sake.
contactjohn (anonymous profile)July 5, 2014 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is lacumbre being facetious or just stupid?:Democratic Republic;The SC created the tax for the OHA with a ruling;The SC and our constitution typically PROTECT the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Otherwise you would have virtually zero rights for underserved minority groups.Nitwit!
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)July 5, 2014 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would have been nice to have the choice to say "don't know".... or "don't care"... (Both are apt responses to my opinion!)
touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)July 6, 2014 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Im not ganna listen to this any more. I never was much of a fan of the Supremes, I always preferred Martha and the Vandellas. Berry Gordy gave Diana Ross way 2 much attention anyways.
dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)July 6, 2014 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unlike the limited options that many of us face with Obamacare, like lack of doctors, those who demand birth control from their employers can either pay for it themselves like I always did or find a new employer. It's a free country and religious freedoms are paramount in making it so.
SB_North (anonymous profile)July 7, 2014 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm actually surprised Obama didn't have enough control over the SC to prevent this decision. He's already demonstrated that it's OK to discriminate against Christians as well as non-religious people in the military by banning Christmas cards in 2013. His statement that allowing GI's to receive cards was a form of discrimination against those of other religions was total BS; a decision involving only one group doesn't include any logical basis for evaluating the treatment of other groups. Christmas is a secular national holiday as well as a religious holiday, and Obama has labeled both nationalism and Christianity as subversive. If Obama's fascism didn't exclude all religions, a statement that GIs of any religion would receive correspondence on their respective religious or holidays would have been non-discriminatory.I have no reason to believe that only conservative Christians are opposed to late-term abortion, and I think it's easy to equate late-term abortion with other types of irresponsible actions that result in loss of life; DUI and texting, for example.I assume Hobby Lobby wouldn't object to paying for a vegan diet for hospitalized patients whose religious beliefs outlawed animal products, and approving time off for non-Christian religious holidays celebrated by employees of other religions.
14noscams (anonymous profile)July 7, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes. Very narrow decision indeed. Only one uterus at a time, wide.
taz (anonymous profile)July 7, 2014 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why would you be surprised about the SC [SCOTUS], 14? Obama has only appointed 2 Justices, and 5 of the 9 are Catholics led by A. Scalia -- this Pres. has NO control & very little influence over SCOTUS.
DrDan (anonymous profile)July 7, 2014 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The SCOTUS ruling makes little difference in a practical sense. I just think it's a slippery slope. What's to prevent Christian Scientists from excluding surgery or Jehovah's Witnesses from excluding blood transfusions from the policies of their employees?
Botany (anonymous profile)July 7, 2014 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Botany.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)July 9, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Call me a religious fanatic but I believe there's life after the the womb.
ahem (anonymous profile)August 7, 2014 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rblacumbre said: "75% to 24% Hmmm? When will the Old Farts on the SC realize this is still a Democracy and not push down their Dictatorial decisions on the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY! Somewhere in the Constitution I believe to be some verbiage about separation of Church and State."
rblabbumble: For starters this is not a scientific poll. Additionally, your opine reeks of a very young and rush to judgment, lack of life experience diatribe. What you really seem to miss from the SC decision is the fact that only one stipulation was ruled illegal by them. That decision will not cause a landslide against Roe V Wade, or a war on women. Stop repeating, like a robot, what your Marxist professors tell you to say.
You also need to remember that a "majority ruled" when the "Final Solution" was founded in 1933 and implemented in 1942 National Socialist Democrat Germany which resulted in that majority "cleansing" the Reich of approx. 14,000,000 people, including 6,000,000 Jews.
Wake up Youngster before someone adds you to the no-drain shower squad.
You also need to study your Constitution; it was framed by deeply religious founding fathers and there was never intended to be a complete separation.
ClayT (anonymous profile)August 15, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Botany, a better question is why is there corporate tyranny in medicine in the first place? Why can't individuals get plans that are as affordable as they can get through their company and work with individual insurance companies on these issues?
The answer is the that medicine was corporatized back in the 70s, they give companies a big tax break to get their employees on their group insurance policies. This causes individuals to not shop for insurance, they shop for jobs that provide insurance. Then when everybody found out they could get cheaper health care by getting it through their company, everybody who could get insurance through their company did. Now nobody shops for the most valuable care, they go where their insurance company tells them for care and the medical industrial complex gets to set the prices.
All of this can be blamed on the fact that government got involved in health care instead of letting individuals work it out and help set prices. That is why health care is so expensive, there is no pricing mechanism left because the government got involved.
I paid the same for a full coverage plan through my company as I could have paid for a private plan that only provided insurance in case of a tragic accident on the individual market, and that was of course before the ACA was implemented which outlawed those type of plans. Now insurance is completely unaffordable for almost everybody. It's really tragic, the insanity of our society, who continues to ask the government to solve things when all they can do is make them worse.
loonpt (anonymous profile)August 15, 2014 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Health Care would be more expensive if government took it over. You'd get lower quality too. Anyone that thinks quality health care can be cheap is not familiar with health care in general. Sure, some savings can be had, but unless you ration it, health care will always be extrement expensive. The only question is if it would be paid directly by individuals or through taxes.
Botany (anonymous profile)August 15, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)