‘Hobby Lobby’ and the Case for More Women on the Bench


Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

No one needs to guess where the women justices of the U.S. Supreme Court stand on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Sebelius.

From the start of this week’s oral arguments, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg drilled former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was arguing on behalf of the for-profit craft store Hobby Lobby. Question after question, these women challenged Clement on the dangerous results of his client’s claim.

That’s because they know that if Hobby Lobby wins, women lose.

“Congress has given a statutory entitlement, and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage,” Justice Kagan said. “And when the employer says, no, I don’t want to give that, that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.”

Short of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked a question about the potential harm a decision for Hobby Lobby could have on female employees, none of the other male justices indicated that they recognized this case was about women. While this case is certainly about religious liberty and the law of corporations, it also can be classified as a sex discrimination case.

The for-profit corporations Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have challenged the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that companies with more than 50 employees provide health coverage that includes birth control without a copay. More than ten years ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an opinion making clear that refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception is sex discrimination. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are asking the Supreme Court for special permission to discriminate against women.

Studies have shown that having a woman on the bench in gender discrimination cases makes a difference. A study published in the Yale Law Journal found that male judges on panels with female judges decided for plaintiffs “more than twice as often as those on all-male panels.”

An additional study found that federal appellate judges are less likely to rule against plaintiffs bringing sex discrimination cases if a female judge is on the panel “because female judges possess information that their male colleagues perceive ‘as more credible and persuasive’ than their own knowledge about sex discrimination.”

President Obama has made strides diversifying the bench, including adding Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. More than 42 percent of Obama’s confirmed nominees have been women, compared to 22 percent under George W. Bush and 29 percent under Bill Clinton. But despite these recent gains, women make up only 32 percent of the federal bench.

We can directly see how the lack of female judges affects the law. Hobby Lobby made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court via the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time of the decision, there was only one woman on the appellate court, Mary Beck Briscoe. In an en banc decision, the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the craft store. Briscoe dissented.

Since then, the U.S. Senate has confirmed another woman to the Tenth Circuit, Carolyn Baldwin McHugh, and an additional woman nominee is now pending on the Senate floor, Nancy Moritz.

Had these women been on the Tenth Circuit at the time the case was before the court, perhaps there would have been a different outcome. We’ll never know.

What we do know is that 99 percent of women, at some point in their life, take birth control. Increasing a woman’s ability to access health care and plan her pregnancies moves women closer to equal economic and social opportunity. We also know that prior to the Affordable Care Act many women were not able to afford birth control, but now millions of women are benefiting from no-copay birth control.

We can only hope that before Friday’s vote, the three women on the Supreme Court can bring around the six male justices to see the true damage a decision for Hobby Lobby could have on women.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • Keninmo

    Hmmmm, “That’s because they know that if Hobby Lobby wins, women lose.” — Wow, thanks Sandhya! Here, like a misinformed American, I thought the purpose of the US Supreme Court was to review laws to determine if they are Constitutional or not. Thankfully, the Center for American Progress has clarified it — SCOTUS is to pick winners and losers, based on their gender, race and politics (and, of course, those winners be women and minorities according to the Center). Now I get it. I was so confused before. Thanks!

    • Lucicia

      Is the Supreme Court really reviews law or it has put corporations interest ahead of American people like Citizen United, etc. ?

      • Keninmo

        Your Constitutional analysis is almost as bad as your grammar. So let us do something crazy, shall we? Instead of using Daily Kos talking points, let’s read the Constitution! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;,,” Hmmmm…it says “No law”. Not “No law, unless Progressives really, really like it”. “No law”. Period.

        Let’s continue..”or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..” Hmmm…no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say “unless it abridges the speech of greedy, greedy, mean, evil, hateful, nasty, corporations that we Progressives think should be Occupied”. Again, it says “no law”. Period.

        Progressives think Constitutional Review doesn’t need to do things like….consult the actual text of the Constitution. They think Constitutional Review = “does it make Progressives feel good”. Yeah, we got that memo long ago.

        • Lucicia

          Yep. We have freedom of religion in America. This implies that corporation for profits like Hobby Lobby should not impose their personal religions onto their 13,000 employees. Where do you get lost?

          • Keninmo

            At the point where you fail to grasp that employees voluntarily accept employment under the agreed terms thereof. And forcing the employer to compromise their religious rights to make you happy, and foot the bill no less. Any other questions?

          • Shan

            Suppose the SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby and they they and every other employer who has already been providing all the contraceptive drugs and devices they didn’t previously object to…remove it from their plans? Understand that the premiums won’t go down, either for the employer or for anybody else paying into the plan. So effectively what would happen is that everybody – including the employer – would continue to pay what they always have but the employees who choose to use the “objectionable” contraception would end up paying extra for it, out of pocket.

            What are those employees supposed to do, who accepted employment under certain agreed to terms, terms which have suddenly changed, at no cost to anybody but said employees?

          • Keninmo

            First off, you are wrong on the cost issue. By definition, when claims go down, premiums go down. Fact. That’s called economics. And Obamacare regulates the premium rates — so your whole first paragraph is logically flawed.

            But regardless of whether premiums rose, dropped or stayed the same, I wasn’t aware that the determinate of whether SCOTUS should allow a government agency (here, the Dept of Health & Human Services via its Obamacare regulations on required coverage features) to trample on and violate Constitutional rights was whether or not allowing them to do so would inconvenience somebody else. My understanding is Constitutional rights are guaranteed by…well, the Constitution. So if some individuals were getting free stuff because DHHS decided to trample on the Constitutional rights of HL, then I would say that those individuals are just going to have to suck it up and pay for their previously free stuff. And no, we don’t get to just pretend it’s Constitutional anyway just so they can keep getting free cheese.

            But don’t look at this as a problem — it’s just another wonderful *feature* of a shoddily put-together law and it’s equally shoddy implementation. Neither of which is HL’s problem to solve nor HL’s responsibility to pay for.

          • lady_black

            Claims do not go DOWN when contraceptives aren’t covered. They go up.

          • Keninmo

            See the response above. Give your references to back this up. What assumptions have to baked into your claim?

          • KingMeIam

            FYI…don’t bother with this group of women on RHRC. The are intellectually incapable of having an argument that doesn’t desolve into one commenter (heil mary1) calling you a pedophile priest our something. And she’ll have the rest of the brood agreeing with her.

          • fiona64

            What’s the matter, 5×5? Still pouting from mummy’s basement since you got yourself banned (again)?

            Pro-tip: you’re heading in the same direction under this handle.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think he’s been feeling neglected because other trolls have occupied our time…poor baby….

          • KingMeIam

            Aww, that’s cute. You think I’m somebody else. Did that person almost make points that you were too intellectually incapable of providing retort?

            You should just probable accuse me of being Keninmo too while you’re at it. After all, all of us dumb men are the same and all.

          • fiona64

            Well, dummy, when women can’t access contraception, some very expensive claims for childbirth happen … but hey, who cares, right? It’s just women being forced to have children they may not want. Men don’t get pregnant, so it doesn’t matter to some fat-mouth on the internet, right?

          • Keninmo

            Well, bigger dummy — you are now claiming that a woman who can’t pop for $10 in contraceptives is so stupid, so ignorant, that she opts instead to have a more expensive pregnancy. And she also can’t go down to Planned Parenthood and get them free there. Seriously, just give up the Daily Kos talking points — it is pure BS to claim that if women don’t get it for free, they are stuck having 18 babies by the age of 30. Get real.

          • goatini

            An insured does not have a co-pay for preventive care under ACA. Evidently some twisted people enjoy lying about this simple tenet and screeching frothing misogyny, when and ONLY when the preventive care in question has to do with females and contraception. All will notice that no OTHER preventive care medicine or procedure has been lied and screeched about at ALL since ACA went into effect. NONE. Only the one that allows females to have full participation in society, the workplace, and academia, as equals to males. Gee… I wonder why THAT is?

          • Keninmo

            Again — GET NEW MATERIAL! gender card is so old-school Prog. You really need to update your schtick! I do think the “anti-religious bigot nutcase” is you, though. Go with it — it’s really in your competency zone.

          • goatini

            I hear Saudi Arabia is the ideal patriarchal misogynist theocracy. Get a one way ticket and live the dream.

          • Keninmo

            [bat] [cat swats mouse aimlessly as mouse isn't even a challenge anymore] Come on, kick it up a notch. Seriously, you’re getting boring.

          • goatini

            Take a nap.

          • Keninmo

            zzzzzzz….. wake me if you get a brain…..

          • expect_resistance

            That’s your response?

          • expect_resistance

            What do you got? Nothing impressive yet.

          • expect_resistance

            That comment is NOT based in reality.

          • lady_black

            You haven’t given any references. Just blathering. What do you think happens when contraceptives aren’t being covered?

          • Keninmo

            Uhhhh….same as everything else that isn’t covered? The individual pays out of pocket instead of the insurance company? I’m just guessing here — I know, wild guess, but hey, what can I say.

          • KingMeIam

            lady_black thinks there are only two options
            1. getting free contraception or
            2. getting pregnant

            and she thinks that women are too stupid to know about option three
            3. paying for your own birth control

          • Keninmo

            Or….4. a government spending program to cover it, or 5. go to Planned Parenthood, or 6. apply to the pharmacy company for a price-break or free based on income (routinely done). Heck, if any woman wants contraception, and even if they want it free or almost free, there are options. And if she thinks doing without her daily Starbucks half-caf, 1%, 110 degree, grande in a venti cup, filled halfway with skinny whip, mocha latte is just tooooo much of a sacrifice and she needs her pills paid for by others…weeeelllllll…..

          • lady_black

            Are women getting contraceptives “free” or are they paying premiums for them? And by the way, I have never had a Starbucks coffee, and don’t need birth control pills, and haven’t for a very long time. But my daughter needed them for a health condition, and I was pissed, pissed, PISSED that our prescription drug insurance didn’t cover them. What the hell was I paying them for???

          • KingMeIam

            You are either being disingenuous or outright deceitful

            Groups like Hobby Lobby and even Catholic run insurance plans (like Georgetown) generally cover contraception when it is used for medical non-contraception use, such as PCOS or endometriosis. But you probably knew that.

          • expect_resistance

            Curious. Are you a libertarian?

          • Keninmo

            The DHHS rule says free. No copay, no cost. Hence the whole point of this case, since you can’t legislate free lunch — somebody picks up the tab.

            I have no idea why you would take out a policy that doesn’t cover what you need. Did you read the terms and look at the covered prescriptions schedule that is required to be provided by the carrier? If not, then you can be PISSED all you want to — what you were paying for was what the carrier told you they agreed to cover.

          • goatini

            Preventive care is covered without co-pay to the insured under ACA. The end.

          • Keninmo

            I will alert the media and SCOTUS. Goatboy has spoken. The end.

          • goatini

            Right, because the media and SCOTUS just aren’t aware of the simple FACT that preventive care is covered without co-pay to the insured under ACA. Dumbass.

          • Keninmo

            Epic fail. See, when you go off script and try to act like you actually know something, you just demonstrate total ignorance. Stick to rageboy — you don’t actually say anything of value, but it’s great comedy.

          • expect_resistance

            Really? Very weak. It’s the trolls that are comedy here. (Yes that means you.)

          • expect_resistance

            The end, because Keninmo called it. Sure, if that’s your inaccurate call on reality. Good luck to you in life. You will need it.

          • expect_resistance

            It’s called preventative care. There are a lot of other things that are covered under preventative care. Do you bitch about them or just birth control? If it’s the latter than that’s misogynistic.

          • goatini

            Just birth control. He’s obviously not all that religious, either, for as much as he keeps slinging around, ahem, “anti-religion bigot”. Religion is the last refuge of the professional misogynist.

          • goatini

            Any insured, under ACA, gets preventive care at no co-pay. Insureds’ access to preventive care should not be discriminated against based solely on gender. Insureds should not have to scrounge around for covered preventive medical care and medicines, just because some religious nuts and/or misogynists have a raging stiffie about anything at all having to do with effective contraception for women. End of story. America is not a theocracy.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — you really are an anti-religious bigot aren’t you? It is such delicious irony to read your posts.

          • goatini

            More like you’re an anti-female bigot and troll. As the status of females today in just about every organized religion is somewhere between Chattel Breeding Property Under Church Approved Male Ownership, and Just Now Breaking The Stained Glass Ceiling, it’s obvious that religion has been bigoted against females since Day One.

            But of course, to comment on reality is, ahem, “anti-religious”. I can’t wait to find out what else you learned in your Koch Smoking Sycophant Correspondence Course.

          • Keninmo

            Boring. Boring. Heard the talking points already. You are losing my interest — come on, you’re slacking off here.

          • goatini

            Can’t focus enough to read anything for longer than 4 seconds, that can’t be “answered” with a stock insult? Sounds like you have a personal problem.

          • Keninmo

            Still boring…

          • expect_resistance

            Who uses “LOL” anymore? All I hear from you is, “blah, blah, blah…..”

          • expect_resistance

            That’s quite the fantasy life you’re living. Do you ever get out much? Really? There’s a great big world out there, you know.

          • lady_black

            Are the Hahns going to decide maternity coverage violates their religious rights, too? Or is that free?

          • Keninmo

            No, that isn’t free. DHHS hasn’t issued a regulation saying that must be provided for free.

            I would think that the SCOTUS, as part of the ruling, would define what is considered “religious exemption eligible” – at least, if they want to do us all a favor, they will.

          • lady_black

            I think the Greens and the Hahns are going to lose. The SCOTUS doesn’t want to face a host of challenges to laws based on corporate “religious values.”

          • Keninmo

            Mmmmmm….no, not really, but I think Chief Roberts will pull another Obamacare rabbit out of his hat. He suspended belief and engaged in cognitive dissonance — “it’s a penalty, not a tax”, later, “it’s a tax, not a penalty”. In the same judicial opinion. So I expect he will do something like “HL is right, in that they are entitled to religious views as a corporation……and HL is wrong because the penalty payment option exists in lieu of offering contraception…. which isn’t a penalty on the exercise of your religious rights because it’s just a tax…. applied on the fact that you didn’t offer health insurance… even though the reason you made that choice was based on your religious beliefs…. but therefore we still aren’t taxing or penalizing you for exercising those religious beliefs”.

          • expect_resistance

            Sounds like you are hung-up on the constitution and not the reality of health care. In fact is it less expensive to prevent and unwanted/unplanned pregnancy than to pay for the cost of pregnancy and birth.

          • goatini

            He’s hung up on women. When preventive medicine and procedures allow us to participate fully in society, academia, and the workplace, his intrinsic mediocrity just isn’t enough to make up for forever-lost male privilege.

          • Keninmo

            Hmmmmm….. it’s a SCOTUS case reviewing…. Constitutionality of a Congressional act. Yeah, I guess I, and the SCOTUS, are “hung up on the constitution and not the reality of heath care”.

          • Shan

            “First off, you are wrong on the cost issue”

            No, I’m not. You can do the homework like I did on that.

            “But regardless of whether premiums rose, dropped or stayed the same, I
            wasn’t aware that the determinate of whether SCOTUS should allow a
            government agency (here, the Dept of Health & Human Services via its
            Obamacare regulations on required coverage features) to trample on and
            violate Constitutional rights was whether or not allowing them to do so
            would inconvenience somebody else.”

            The Hobby Lobby case passed the “substantial burden” requirement of the RFRA by claiming that they’d be fined for either not complying with the ACA or for not providing health insurance at all. Continuing to provide the coverage is no financial burden at ALL to Hobby Lobby. However, removing the coverage shifts the entire financial burden onto the employees who choose to use contraception. Effectively, this is Hobby Lobby exercising their power to discriminate against their employees and calling it a Constitutional right.

            “Neither of which is HL’s problem to solve nor HL’s responsibility to pay for.”

            This is why we need a single payer or, dare I say it, universal healthcare. Then, everybody pays into the system and everybody uses it as they and their doctors see fit. Oh, just as they already do for the Title X funding everybody’s taex (including Hobby Lobby’s) pay for NOW.

          • Keninmo

            First off, no I’m not wrong. What unstated assumptions are you putting into your “research”? You keep posting that same unsubstantiated claim with references to unstated “research”. The flat assertion of “fewer claims equals higher costs” is asinine — so what have you baked into the numbers to cook the books to get your pre-desired outcome?

            Your 2nd paragraph doesn’t even make sense. HL asserts that failing to provide coverage requires them to incur the tax penalty, which is fact. Demonstrable fact. No matter how you spin it. Being forced by the government to provide contraception violates the HL owner’s religious protection rights guaranteed by the First Amendment — that is the core of the statement. The tax penalty, in essence, makes HL pay for the exercise of their religious rights. That is unconstitutional. Fact. Removing coverage is remedying the Congressional overstep. If Congress wants to give out free contraceptives, then they can set up a mechanism whereby they pay for it. Mandating the employer pay for it or pay a tax penalty is violating the First Amendment.

            And Good Lord, you’ve GOT to be kidding me. So, since Obamacare has been such a problem-riddled fiasco in implementation and regulation, your answer is….why double down on the insanity and give the government ALL of it! Let me give you an analogy — you drop your kid off at daycare, and you come back in the afternoon. Your kid is in the corner sitting in their own p00, hasn’t eaten since you dropped him off, and the other kids have taken turns beating the snot out of him. Your response is…well, clearly I need to give the daycare full custody of my kid so I can get out of the way of interfering with their amazing parenting skills. Yeah, great plan.

          • Shan

            Of course none of it makes sense to you, Ken. And, frankly, I don’t have the energy to deal with your ilk today. Carry on freaking out.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — the last bastion of the Progressive — “I’m above it all, and you are just too uninformed to understand my brilliance”. Knew it was coming. You forgot to blame Bush and throw the race / gender card on the way out the door.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re a disgusting fascist mother killer. Your kind always has a sex offender history.

          • Keninmo

            You do know that your particular meds, psychiatric counseling and even in-patient care, are covered by most insurance policies. Of course, in your case, being court-ordered, it’s picked up by the state anyway.

          • HeilMary1

            I’m not the pompous mother killer here, YOU ARE, so YOU take YOUR meds.

          • Keninmo

            Hmmmm….no, that doesn’t work. It’s just not *you*. The *you* we’ve come to know and love, like the crazy nitwit on the street corner talking to himself. You’re going off script again. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t *sing*. Close your eyes and channel your inner bigot. Try again.

          • goatini

            Maybe it’s Adderall and 4 Loko instead.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, yes, pregnancy and childbirth, specifically the costs ASSOCIATED with them, are so much an inconvenience according to Kenny-boy, aren’t they, Shan? Funny that, considering it’s something he, HIMSELF, will never have to confront. He can just stay snug and secure in his little hidey-hole knowing that HIS insurance will always be covered, while whining, gnashing his teeth and wailing and weeping that women can get THEIRS, too.

          • corruptintenz

            Except that the SCOTUS has already decided that ACA is constitutional. They have not issued a decision on this subset of ACA yet.

          • Keninmo

            Yes. And SCOTUS has also decided that corporations have First Amendment rights. And when a LAW intersects with a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, the law…..loses. Fact. That is precisely WHY this case was granted certiorari. Any other questions?

          • corruptintenz

            A few questions, yes.
            1) Are you aware of the definition of the word ‘intersects’? Your sentence makes no sense. Do you mean to say conflicts?

            2) SCOTUS decided that corporations could not be denied freedom of speech, (overruling previous decisions on the same topic), not that they ‘have first amendment rights’.

          • HeilMary1

            You oppose women’s constitutional right not to be throw-away incubators for your pedophile priests.

          • Keninmo

            “You throw away the right, with all your might, babies and incubators every night, and….more rhymin’ stuff”. LOL!

          • HeilMary1

            You fascists think human rights are a joke.

          • Keninmo

            (too easy) — Uh, no, you are the joke. Sadly pathetic.

          • Lucicia

            Hobby Lobby is not a religious entities, it’s a corporation for profits; it has over 500 stores and 13,000 employees. Only churches and affiliates are considered religious entities, and Hobby Lobby is not.

            “The owners of Hobby Lobby set up their family owned business as a Corporation to provide legal protection for them and their family from liabilities of the business, protect them financially from actions against the corporation. If the business was forced to file bankruptcy the families personal assets are protected. However now this family wants personal religious beliefs to be part and parcel with the business. If you and your family are protected financially by being a corporation you can not than claim your entity has religious beliefs.”

            ~Grannysmovin

          • Lucicia

            Birth control is part of health care. Health care is part of an
            employee’s compensation. Employees choose how to use their
            compensation. Not employers.

            Furthermore, birth control is cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth. Plans that cover birth control are cheaper than plans that do not. Employees should not be forced to spend more and get less.

            Lastly, employers can not force their religious (or political) beliefs on employees. Not even indirectly. That is the law, and a good law

            ~Curious Fella

          • Keninmo

            Ah yes, again with the pseudo-authorities! Let’s see, I’m guessing Curious George has never actually HAD an employer-provided plan, and neither have you. Health INSURANCE (NOT Health CARE — very few employers are in the business of performing open heart surgery in their break room) MAY be part of an employee’s compensation. And it is up to the employer on which plan or plans to choose to offer, and how much to contribute to said plan, if anything at all. That is still the case under Obamacare, where an employer may simply pay a tax penalty and not even provide any health insurance option.

            Furthermore, the cost of birth control or abortion or abortifacients is completely irrelevant to whether a government entity can trample on Constitutional rights. Cost doesn’t factor into whether the Bill of Rights can be waived for the convenience of a third party.

            And lastly, employees cannot force their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) onto employers, nor can a government entity. It’s that silly First Amendment again — it works BOTH ways, you see. Yeah, I know, Progressives only think rights work one way — theirs. And it isn’t a law — it’s a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Do Christian employees get to demand their employer provide them with a bible AND foot the bill for it? Well, Lucicia, do they? If not, then why not? Why do they get to demand birth control and not bibles? According to your logic, they should be able to demand pretty much anything they want and make the employer foot the bill.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No one is forcing an employer to cover abortion or abortifacients.

          • Keninmo

            There is a word in the English language — “or”. I used it. And have no illusions — if the case law is established that contraceptives must be covered, and there are no religious exemptions, abortifacients and abortion are next. Or are you hereby stating, on record, you oppose the inclusion of them as mandated coverage items?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t accept your premise. And Hobby Lobby is not a church, nor is it a person with sincerely held religious beliefs. As to why Bibles aren’t covered, they’re not a prescription medication.

          • Keninmo

            I don’t expect you to accept my premise — I expect you to accept the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United.

            And the bibles analogy just went right over your head, didn’t it?

          • goatini

            Citizens United will eventually be repealed.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — what a moron! “Repealed” — you can’t make this stuff up. And you don’t even get what’s so incredibly stupid about your post.

          • HeilMary1

            Go back to Nazi Germany where Catholic fascism criminalized women’s health before getting its ass whipped by the Allies. Citizens United will be repealed, even if it takes another civil war by us slaves.

          • Keninmo

            — and now you are “liking” your own posts via your other account! It’s amazing, really.

          • goatini

            What’s really amazing is that the trolls who post with various socks always out themselves by accusing the innocent of what they themselves are actually doing.

            Rove 101. It’s played. Get a new shtick.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — I really like it that you think I’m somebody else that also got into your noggin’ — not that in your noggin’ is a really pleasant place to be — it’s full of bigotry and hate, and loads and loads of mental health issues. Pretty seedy — like the bad parts of Detroit and as filthy as a New Jersey beach. Funny, though. Thanks for the Monday evening comedy hour.

          • goatini

            And the trolls who post with various socks always further out themselves with over-the-top belligerent over-defensiveness when they get called out.

          • HeilMary1

            Trolls and their sock puppets use the same telltale phrasing. 5×5’s outed himself with self-plagiarism.

          • goatini

            I’d tell you to contact Senator Sanders and tell him how “incredibly stupid” he is, but then again, we know your vapid mind considers any pol who’s not a devout Koch smoker to be, ahem, “incredibly stupid”.

          • Keninmo

            I’ve heard Bernie Sanders talk. He is incredibly stupid.

          • goatini

            Yeah, I know, he’s not a drooling Koch smoker like you.

          • Keninmo

            Uh oh, now the Progressive Police are going to get you. You made a boo-boo. You used a gay reference in a negative way. No Obama phone for you. No pen either.

          • goatini

            Just talking about your love for those bros.

          • HeilMary1

            Then you’re OK with religious cannibal employers eating employees.

          • Keninmo

            Maybe they are tasty employees. With the right garnish and a side of merlot?

          • HeilMary1

            According to your logic, cult bully employers have the criminal right to kick female employees into early graves by maliciously interfering with their ob/gyn visits.

          • Keninmo

            Take my advice before — do it like Jesse J — maybe “According to your plan maybe, my women all have a baby. Early dyin’, I’m not lyin’, the whole world is cryin’, and I’m sighin” – LOL!

          • HeilMary1

            You think maternal death is a joke.

          • Keninmo

            I think you are the joke. A sad, pathetic … yet absolutely hilarious joke. The gift of stupidity that keeps on giving. If only Joe Biden knew you existed. He could put you out in front of himself — he’d look like a Mensa member then.

          • Keninmo

            Seriously, you really didn’t just cite “Grannysmovin” as your source of legal opinion, did you? LOL — I’ll alert Chief Justice Roberts’ legal staff immediately! I’m sure he’ll be relieved to know that SCOTUS doesn’t have to bother with this review now that “Grannysmovin” has issued a formal legal finding!

            Oh, but you might ask Granny the following — if SCOTUS has already determined that (A) a Catholic Hospital is a religious entity, and (B) a parochial school is also, and (C) corporations have Constitutional rights like Freedom of Speech, uh…..basically, Granny is full of BS.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re full of Nazi contempt for the basic human rights of workers, women and other minorities.

          • Keninmo

            See above — like I said, less rageboy and dated talking points — the race / gender card flipping is old school Progressive. Jesse Jackson did it decades earlier and with way more style than you could ever pull off.

          • HeilMary1

            Fascist misogyny and holy pedophilia are your only tools.

          • Keninmo

            That’s what I’m talking about! Right there — religion-hating bigot nutjob! It’s you! Totally you! It works for your mental capacity. Stick with it — you epic fail when you go off script, like Obama without a teleprompter.

          • goatini

            Impotent O’Keefe wannabe on stimulants and rage is impotent.

          • Keninmo

            LOL, if you need to masquerade as two aliases, you already fail.

          • goatini

            I’m not the one with at least one other active sock, and at least three dead socks. That would be you.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — this is classic! You got me confused with another one of your obsessive crushes! HA! You know, this just makes it all the more delicious irony.

          • goatini

            Alcohol and ADD meds, combined with sleep deprivation, makes people hallucinate. Get help.

          • Keninmo

            You obviously speak from first-hand knowledge. I’ll bet you are doing so at this very moment.

          • goatini

            If only someone cared enough about you to do an intervention. Too bad no one does.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Hopefully no one wants to be O’Keefe. Not even O’Keefe. He’s kind of devolved into a very sad joke.

          • HeilMary1

            He’s a sex offender who always gets off on daddy’s money.

          • fiona64

            When someone creates a company, they are creating a legal wall between their personal assets and those of the firm. The firm is a fictitious “person,” if you will. In creating that distance, the business owner also removes his or her personal beliefs from the picture. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, not a church. It is not a religious entity. You are arguing for the owners of a for-profit corporation to be able to force their religious beliefs on employees who may or may not concur with them. In effect, you are arguing for establishment of a religion. And that, sirrah, is unconstitutional.

          • Keninmo

            Unfortunately for you, SCOTUS has already decided you are wrong. It’s literally that Citizens United case your side is having such an ungodly fit over. Corporations have First Amendment rights of Free Speech. Guess what — Freedom of Religion is in the same amendment. So if SCOTUS has already stated they have First Amendment rights, then…..well, you get the idea (maybe, maybe not — it isn’t a guarantee based on your posting).

          • corruptintenz

            The notion that the SCOTUS is unable to parse the First Amendment in issuing decisions, and indeed that somehow this case cannot overturn or impact another would come as a surprise to them.

          • Keninmo

            Never said they can’t — but based on CU, they aren’t likely to.

          • corruptintenz

            …based on rationality, they would have to. If you are saying that CU was an irrational decision, you might have a point.

          • fiona64

            Please let me know the next time a Hobby Lobby is sitting in the pew next to you. At that point, I’ll believe that a corporation has religious freedom.

            Until then, you’ve demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of business law. Congratulations!

          • Keninmo

            The owners of HL do sit in pews. That is the essence of the case. But I’ll alert Chief Roberts that he is completely and totally ignorant of business law, because fiona64 has clarified it for him. Imagine, he was so stupid to grant review to the case instead of dismissing it outright. Thank you, fiona64, for clarifying the incredible oversight on the part of SCOTUS. Now, straighten them out on Citizens United!

          • HeilMary1

            HL owners don’t have the “religious right” to commit CRIMINAL Munchausen by Proxy abuse against female employees. Religious cannibals, etc. haven’t been granted the right to eat their employees, no matter how many political packs Carl Rove sets up for the Church of Hannibal Lector. Get it?

          • Keninmo

            LOL — you are slightly funny. Okay, you got me — good schtick. As Alice Cooper would say “that’s good vaudeville”. Still, rather amateurish overall. You need less pathetic rageboy and more thought. And newer material too.

          • HeilMary1

            Your bullying insults aren’t even slightly funny.

          • Keninmo

            But man, your blatant stupidity is. It’s hilarious.

          • fiona64

            The owners, dummy, are NOT the business. But you know that, don’t you 5×5?

          • lady_black

            Simply because a corporation can speak, doesn’t give a corporation religious rights.

          • Keninmo

            Mmmmm…..the SCOTUS trend is definitely not in your favor. But I will alert them that you have already made the ruling. They will no doubt defer to your decision on the issue.

          • HeilMary1

            The First Amendment doesn’t give pedophile cults the right to hijack female employees’ wombs on behalf of the pedophiles. Get it?

          • Keninmo

            I get it that you are a bigoted rageboy. That is blatantly obvious. Got mommy or daddy issues much?

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the misogynist bigot who supports corporate and cult enslavement of female employees. You have sociopathic rage issues against people who stand up to you.

          • Keninmo

            You missed the other posts — you’re going old school again — rhyming and religion-hating bigot — that’s your “comfy spot”.

          • corruptintenz

            It is often the desire of members of a constitutional state to seek rights and ignore duties. This is nothing new.

          • fiona64

            Your point is well taken.

          • Arekushieru

            And that is what the pompous ‘Church Leaders’ try to impose on their own congregation, as well. After all, as people have said, many Catholic women also use contraceptives, but the Church would infringe upon their freedom of religion.

          • corruptintenz

            The employer is the corporation. Whether or not the corporation, as a legal entity, has ‘religious rights’ as you call them, and whether those rights include the abridgment of the rights of of their employees, also part of the corporation, is exactly what the SCOTUS has not yet decided.

          • Keninmo

            Uhhhhh…yeah, I believe that is precisely what we are discussing. Hey, great on the uptake!

            So I’ve offered Citizens United as an actual SCOTUS ruling establishing precedent. The Daily Kos Patrol have offered…Progressive Rageboy whines. So far, I’m ahead.

          • corruptintenz

            Except that you miss the point entirely, I agree with you.

            Also, SCOTUS ignored precedent in CU, and may do so again. You are as ahead as you can ignore precedence when it disagrees with your bias and then champion it when it agrees with your bias.

          • HeilMary1

            Desperation for work doesn’t mean female store clerks agree to suffer deadly, maiming unwanted pregnancies on behalf of the store owner’s favorite pedophile priests. Female clerks already pay for their insurance and they deserve the same coverage as male employees.

          • Keninmo

            So now, only desperate people work at HL? Seriously, you aren’t even a challenge. You ooze stupidity. Can’t you get better material?

          • KingMeIam

            Don’t argue with her. She has some really deep mental health issues. I’m actually kind of scared what she might do if she finally realizes that she is insane.

          • Keninmo

            “Her”? LOL — I doubt it. 15-year-old Middle School boy, or 20-something hipster loser. Been molested, probably by a parent or close relative. Under court-ordered psychiatric care.

          • KingMeIam

            “court ordered psychiatric care”

            For the good of the rest of society I sure hope so. But I don’t think it’s working. Time to increase the Risperdal.

          • goatini

            You two boys really need to get a room.

          • HeilMary1

            They’re probably one and the same.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Hey, and king will have a date at last,.

          • HeilMary1

            My childbirth bladder- and bowel-incontinent Catholic mom, fearing death from another RCC-enforced pregnancy, burned my skin off her permanent abstinence excuse. You monsters, like her, are the ones deserving court-ordered incarceration. Do your mommies know you cyber bully adult survivors of Catholic anti-abortion abusers?

          • Keninmo

            Okay, that’s stepping it up, but kind of like a bad Quentin Tarantino movie, only you don’t have the talent of Tarantino. See, he does it and it’s funny. You do it, and…..well, it’s….pathetic, really.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the clinic bombers/child rapists/wife killers here and you call me insane? Your only support is from your sock puppet alter ego.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — it’s just a crazy loon hipster kid. The multiple personalities is a fascinating textbook case though. You know, some psychology grad student could do their dissertation on that nutjob. Only problem — there is no way a review committee would believe it was for real. They would say it was all made up.

          • expect_resistance

            What’s your point? What does this have to do with the topic or article? You have no basis for anything you say. So sad for you.

          • HeilMary1

            Stupid you hasn’t noticed America’s massive unemployment and outsourcing?

          • Keninmo

            “Stupid you hasn’t noticed” — LOL — it just gets better, doesn’t it?

          • expect_resistance

            Take about needed new material. You are repeating the same old bullshit. Reality check for you.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes more questions. How about the tax breaks Hobby Lobby gets form the government for providing health care to its employees. Or the tax breaks it gets from the government for being a business? The government gives tax breaks to business that are “job creators” (although that’s a stupid and meaningless term.) Doesn’t it? If the government gives tax breaks to business, then those business need to comply with federal labor laws.

          • Keninmo

            Enumerate those “tax breaks”. And you don’t even understand the nature of the case in review — seriously, goathead, jennifer, crazymary, whatever you want to call yourself this time, if you can’t actually follow the article, then… well, you are beyond hope.

          • expect_resistance

            Why can’t you answer my question? You’re deflecting. It doesn’t matter who is asking the question.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            HL was supplying their employees with a policy that covered birth control before they sued. Check it out.

            And the deal is that if you are going to conscientiously object, you assume the burden of the Objection. Transferring the burden of your Conscientious Objection onto the Other is not CO. It is assault.

            Salt Protest in India a prime example. The COs took the blows; they did not deal them out. An appropriate form of CO for HL would be ceasing to sell goods from China. Taking a standard medication from sales clerks is not CO.

            You may snarl and snarl. De nada. You remain a low information mean Uglyl. Sucks to be you.

          • Keninmo

            You do get the fact that this is a case reviewing Constitutionality, right? Well, maybe not.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes! Freedom from religion.

        • expect_resistance

          When corporations make the rules we are all in trouble.

          • goatini

            Corporations and religions.

    • Renee Goodwin

      The Supreme court has been questionable for quite a while, with Shrub being declared president, and Citizens United certainly doesn’t sound like anything that contributes to the well being and constitutional rights of most (non filthy rich) people.

      • Keninmo

        Oh give me a break, seriously. The USA Today did a recount exercise. They took 10 scenarios and recounted themselves. Bush won 9 of 10. Which did he lose? When Gore got to pick which PRECINCTS in which counties to recount. In other words — given that you see which precincts have heavy, heavy majority Democrat like the inner city ghettos, then ONLY recount THOSE. Everybody else? Tough.

        So in the Progressive mind, the “Equal Protection” part of the Constitution applies only when you are spouting talking points about gay marriage. When you are counting votes? It’s “Equal Protection (for Progressives only — anybody else, tough)”. Yeah, we got that memo a long, long time ago also.

        On your CU talking point, see the other Daily Kos viewer below. And if you are really, truly so offended by the CU implications, then why weren’t you outraged that Unions could spend unlimited funds on partisan campaigns? Why weren’t you appalled that Obama set up his own personal political slush fund in OFA? Oh, yeah, again that “it’s good for Progressives, it’s good for the ‘American people’, because of course, Progressives = THE American People!” Yeah, memo received and thrown in the trash also.

        • fiona64

          Citation needed. Or an admission that you’re a liar. Either one will do.

          Why? Because of reality.

          http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

          • fiona64

            Reply to Keninmo, in moderation:

            Typical neo-con … can’t handle reality. Boo-hoo, sniff. Learn to live with the disappointment.

          • Keninmo

            Answered already — you continue to be incapable of reading comprehension. No surprise.

          • HeilMary1

            You can’t handle any truths, fascist.

          • Keninmo

            LOL Did school just let you out?

          • goatini

            Put down the Adderall and Red Bull, son.

          • HeilMary1

            5×5 is back and masturbating with a sock puppet!

          • Keninmo

            LOL — talking to your other account — it’s priceless.

          • goatini

            Enjoy your stay.

          • Keninmo

            I am enjoying smacking you around — you are so stupid, you don’t even know who you are talking to. It’s priceless!

          • goatini

            Adding “enjoys vicarious violence against women” to your CV.

          • Keninmo

            Read your posts — you are no “woman”.

          • goatini

            I know there’s at least two or three other words you’d like to use instead, but evidently you want to stretch out your fleeting hours here as far as possible. Enjoy them.

          • Keninmo

            Actually, the words describing you take up entire chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Way too long a post to put here.

          • goatini

            Projection 101, it’s all liars and trolls have.

          • expect_resistance

            I have several mental disorders, what’s your point?

          • HeilMary1

            And still you make 100x more sense than Kenny Boy aka 5×5.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s more of a woman than you are a “man”.

          • Keninmo

            Three accounts? Wow, you’re like the Sybil of the Internet, aren’t you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Just me. Keep on running your mouth, though. It’s always amusing to see trolls digging big holes for themselves.

          • fiona64

            It’s a funny little creature, accusing others of doing what it’s been caught out doing …

          • expect_resistance

            You have know idea about the powers she has. Watch out. I hear her hexing abilities are downright crazy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Brief stay.

          • Keninmo

            Pick up the lithium and sedatives, loon.

          • expect_resistance

            That’s so uncreative. You sound sheltered.

          • expect_resistance

            How long did it take you to think up that one?

          • expect_resistance

            Are you a stalker?

          • KingMeIam

            Aren’t you the one flagging my comments do they don’t get seen?

            And who is it that cannot handle reality?

          • HeilMary1

            YOU can’t handle the reality that ALL abortions are justified self-defense.

          • goatini

            Trolls get flagged.

          • expect_resistance

            That’s complete crap.

          • fiona64

            Just outed yourself, 5×5. And no, I’m not flagging you.

            Oh, pro-tip? Your comments can still be seen when they’re flagged.

        • HeilMary1

          Greg Palast proved that Katherine Harris criminally conspired with Jeb to throw 100,000 blacks off voting roles for “crimes they committed in FUTURE YEARS!” Take your Nazism back to BreitBARF.

          • Keninmo

            That’s a special kind of stupidity that needs no further refute. You would fit well with the birther and 9/11 truther nuts.

          • goatini

            But since HM’s message was actually accurate, it’s also interesting to note that you really believe the Official Conspiracy Theory re: 19 not-devout-at-all cavemen with box cutters.

          • Keninmo

            Ah yes, I knew it — you can be pegged easily! Too funny, too funny.

          • HeilMary1

            Actually, I misspelled voting role — it should be voting roll.

          • expect_resistance

            No worries it’s not a mortal sin. :)

          • HeilMary1

            “Official Conspiracy Theory re: 19 not-devout-at-all cavemen with box cutters”

            That’s a great description. My Tea Party neighbor, whose young adult son recently died from flesh eating bacteria, worked for American Airlines as a flight attendant during 9/11 and even she picked up inside info that conflicted with the official government story.

          • goatini

            So many details have just disappeared down the rabbit hole; I wish I’d taken screen shots of some of the contemporary news stories that appeared and vanished very, very quickly – and forever.

    • expect_resistance

      It is sex discrimination and it’s stupid.

  • Tara Sundberg

    This would never happen in Canada. Get it together United States, you call yourself the leader of the free world, lol!

    • Mindy McIndy

      And this is one of the many reasons why me and the missus are moving to Canada.

      • Keninmo

        Okay — depart at your earliest opportunity and let us know how much you love the 60% tax burden & etc. That inconvenient thing to Progressives called the Constitution guarantees that you have the right to do so, and the government can’t take it away — unlike Canada, whose government writes it’s own Constitution as it sees fit.

        • corruptintenz

          All constitutional entities both write and modify their constitutions as they see fit. If the US for some reason did not, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today, which unfortunately include the right to not comprehend those rights, their origin, or the duties that come with them.

          • Keninmo

            I guess there is a point buried in here somewhere, but I’m not seeing it.

          • goatini

            Education 101 for the Regressive, as apparently, no, you can’t read.

          • Keninmo

            I’m wounded. Really. Goathead with the insightful post. So iinformative, so typically Progressive. Words…with no real meaning. Check.

          • goatini

            Great assessment, as they were your own words, with one modification as regards form of address.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — again, get new material. It’s weak, stale, losing its zing. Stick with the bigot rageboy angle.

          • expect_resistance

            Why are you here? You are not entertaining or clever.

          • HeilMary1

            5×5, I hope you get banned again.

          • Keninmo

            What is this “5×5″ you obsess over? Is that your IQ and your other account’s IQ multiplied together?

          • expect_resistance

            Wow you can do math? The wonders never stop. *eyeroll*

          • fiona64

            Oh, you’re so clever.

            Not.

            We know that you’re sockpuppeting again, and cruising to be banned again under your latest handles. Sucks to be you, loser-boy.

          • expect_resistance

            I’ve come to ignore it. I only pay attention to and read the comments of the regulars and take those seriously.

            Their arguments (the trolls) are so pointless and stupid, purely sexist really. We can see through it, we know this it’s bullshit. Just ignore the crap and flag the abuse.

          • expect_resistance

            Here’s an engl 101 lesson for you, it’s “informative” not “iimformative.”

          • corruptintenz

            …and yet you seem emblematic of it.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        I would move there but they do not want me. I would move if I could figure out where to go.

    • Keninmo

      Have at it — Canada doesn’t have a Constitution per se — it has an undefined collection of vague traditions along with ad hoc stuff made up along the way. When you can change the “Constitution” on Wednesday according to political whims of Tuesday, you get all kinds of crazy.

      • fiona64

        Canada doesn’t have a Constitution per se

        I think the Canadians would find this assertion surprising.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

        • Keninmo

          Probably because they don’t even know their own government structures. I gave you the reference — can’t you read it? Canada Constitution Act of 1982 — Good Lord, woman, that’s what Wiki and Google are for! You give the link back but didn’t even read it! Canada’s “Constitution”, as explained therein, is a morass of several legislative acts (that being just one of them), a schedule of references in that act (of which there are 30, yes, 30!), and “uncodified” (unwritten) traditions and conventions (as determined by Reference re Secession of Quebec and New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v. Nova Scotia by the Canadian Supreme Court).

          So basically, it is a legislative act, and other legislative act, and a bunch of other legislative acts, and all revisions, changes and amendments to those therein, and a bunch of references, and some stuff that isn’t even written down but “everybody knows”, and possibly even international law stuff not even written by Canada.

          Wow, you really got me, didn’t you? LOL! I challenge you, since you are so knowledgeable — list out ALL the stuff that comprises the Canadian “Constitution”.

          • fiona64

            Your claim was that there was no Constitution … and you didn’t give a link, you made a claim. The Constitution Act of 1982 is what separates Canada from the UK.

            I’m sorry you were homeschooled and all, but some of us can actually read.

          • Keninmo

            You were apparently public schooled. I said, specifically, “no constitution per se”. “Per se” — Latin — “in itself” — i.e. no single document in and of itself.

            Education 101 for the Progressive.

          • expect_resistance

            Are you here to teach engl 101? Oh do tell.

          • fiona64

            Except that you were wrong.

            Reis ipsa loquitur.

    • Lucicia

      Hobby Lobby is not a religious entities, it’s a corporation for profits; it
      has over 500 stores and 13,000 employees. Only churches and
      affiliates are considered religious entities.

      Businesses must provide healthcare for full-time employees, they cannot pick and
      choose what they’ll provide.

      By the way, 93% of Hobby Lobby inventory comes from China where there
      have been 336 million abortion cases in the past 30 years. Hypocrisy? Isn’t hypocrisy is not Christian’s value?

      Furthermore, “the company admits in its complaint that until it considered
      filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually
      covered Plan B and Ella.” Was it abortion or a burden then, or
      it’s a political issue now to undermine the Affordable Care Act?

      “Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B’s mechanism has
      concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in
      the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception.”

      “Dennis Miller, an abortion foe and director of the bioethics center at the
      Christian Cedarville University, concluded that emergency
      contraception drugs don’t cause abortions. Also, IUDs generally work
      like spermicide, preventing conception.”

      The National Coalition of American Nuns said, “we want to make clear
      that the sin is not a person using birth control. The sin is denying
      women the right and the means to plan their families.”

      “It isn’t freedom when a woman can be held hostage by the owner of a
      business,” said Sister Donna Quinn, the head of NCAN.

      source: Are You There God? It’s Me, Hobby Lobby by Stephanie Mencimer

      • KingMeIam

        Yea abortion. That crazy high number in China is something the US should really strive for , ya know, to show the women how much we love them.

        • Libby Reale

          Yay for you for entirely missing the point.

        • HeilMary1

          Your adultery and holy annulments over stinky obstetric incontinence sure shows your hatred for women who stupidly obey you.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Do not rub it in, okay. It hurts.

  • goatini

    The only fact that is relevant and applicable here, is that the ACA provides insureds with preventive health care and medications with no co-pay. It’s THAT simple.

    But the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth by certain religious nuts &/or rabid misogynist types have occurred ONLY when the preventive care in question has to do with females and contraception.

    All will notice that no OTHER preventive care medicine or procedure has been subjected at ALL to outrageous BS challenges, since ACA went into effect. NONE. Only the one that allows females to have full participation in society, the workplace, and academia, as equals to males. Gee… I wonder why THAT is?

    • Keninmo

      Ah yes at last, goatboy with the gender card. To answer the rageboy question … Because no other point has this particular combo of violations of constitutional rights. Any other stupid questions?

      • goatini

        You’re full of them, and also of the more generic “it”.

        • Keninmo

          Boring. Not even original.

          • goatini

            Yes, you are, and no, you’re not.

          • expect_resistance

            Really? Cuz I can predict the next sexist thing you will say. It’s getting old.

      • fiona64

        Please tell me which male-only medication is being discussed as “against the religion” of a for-profit company. I’ll wait …

        ::crickets::

    • Jennifer Starr

      I think it’s hilarious that its coverage is even controversial, given that a majority of women have used it–and that includes a majority of Catholic women. Of course the apologists will shriek that they aren’t ‘true Catholics’, but that’s nonsense.

    • lady_black

      Exactly. No medical needs of males are EVER subjected to moralizing.

  • KingMeIam

    Let’s make oral contraceptive pills over the counter , just like condoms, and Plan B. That way, nobody will be able to complain how their big bad insurance company isn’t paying for certain prescription medication.

    Consult your doctor if you like. Read the label. Buy the cheap genetic stuff..or don’t. Your choice.

    • lady_black

      The suit doesn’t claim they oppose OCPs. Their objection is to one type of morning after pill that isn’t OTC, and IUDs, which will NEVER be OTC. I know how I WOULD get them to pay for emergency contraceptives. Regular birth control pills can be used as EC. But not everyone knows that.

      • KingMeIam

        Well good thing IUDs are super cheap on a cost/month basis. We’re talking as low as 14 cents per day.

        • goatini

          And should be covered by any healthcare plan.

          • KingMeIam

            Hey, if it were my insurance company, we’d cover IUDs. Of course we’d just increase your premiums by $10 a month for the coverage even though it would only would cost you $4/month out of pocket.

          • goatini

            I get it now, I’ve actually been out in the business world for 40 years, and you are still wet behind the ears. Cheer up, maybe you’ll get a full-time job someday.

          • KingMeIam

            40 years and you just now learned how insurance premiums work.Congrats.

          • goatini

            Another amateur Rove 101 acolyte, I see: Accuse the factually correct opposition of your own personal failings.

          • KingMeIam

            How are you “factually correct?” being that you don’t present any facts??

            Are you confused?

          • goatini

            You don’t present any facts. Fixed it for you.

          • KingMeIam

            Great comeback. Really.

            Did you really think that insurance companies won’t increase your premiums for additional coverage?

          • goatini

            Where’s your poutrage over all the other preventive care procedures and medications covered with no co-pay under ACA?

            Oh… there wasn’t any…

          • KingMeIam

            Are people claiming religious exemptions for those things?

            Yeah, you see even though I’m personally an atheist, I understand that it’s important to allow people to practice their religion to the maximum extent allowed. And if that includes not forcing an employer to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs like certain forms of contraception that are otherwise readily available on the open market, then I’m ok with that.

          • JamieHaman

            Same old lie about an employer paying for these things. Try something new.

          • HeilMary1

            KingM supports the RCC hiding pedophile priests’ crimes and kicking women and gays into early graves.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Can you convince more abortion supporters to sound like you? It kind of helps to rile up our base on election day.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. YOUR ‘base’ is the reason HeilMary sounds the way she does. If you want help riling up your base, expect MORE people like her (and us) to come out of the woodwork. But, I forget, you people really like shooting yourselves in the foot, don’t you?

            Btw, most Pro-Lifers have come out in support of the VERY THINGS that HeilMary mentioned. Oopsies?

            Also, can you anti-choicers PLEASE be truthful for ONCE? We support both pregnancy and abortion as OPTIONS. YOU support pregnancy as duty.

          • goatini

            It’s patently ridiculous for “people”, or a corporate “person”, to attempt to claim a so-called “religious exemption” for ANY FDA-approved drug or device used for preventive care. Or for acute, chronic, maintenance, emergency, or any other approved on-label care, for that matter. If it violates their, ahem, “religious beliefs”, then they don’t have to use that drug or device. But employee health coverage belongs to the employee. It is part of their fully overheaded compensation package. And ACA provides for no co-pay for the insured for preventive care.

            All this nonsense is about attempting to legislate illegal discrimination. Period.

          • expect_resistance

            Why is Hobby Lobby doing business in China? Sounds like that is going against their religion and they are hypocrites.

          • expect_resistance

            That mud be your automatic come back, “Are you confused.” Sounds like projection.

          • expect_resistance

            I agree it’s amateur. I can almost predict what he will say next.

          • fiona64

            … said the unemployed loser who lives in his mother’s basement …

          • expect_resistance

            If it were your insurance company why wouldn’t you make them free if you are so in favor of it.

          • KingMeIam

            “free”?

            Maybe you’re a bit confused. Do you think the insurance companies that offer contraception coverage do so out of pure kindness, our because they can charger higher premiums for more coverage?

          • expect_resistance

            No not confused. You’re such an advocate of IUDs and how inexpensive they are, why not make them free? If you believe in something so much wouldn’t you donate enough money or invest enough to make it free. Just saying. It’s preventative care, put your money were your mouth is. If I ran an insurance company I would make all preventive care cost free. You know why? Because it saves money because it prevents something. Duh, derp derp.

    • expect_resistance

      That’s not the discussion here. It’s not an OTC drug now, deal with the current situation.

  • goatini

    Two male trolls have commandeered the comments on this article, using it for their own personal virtual misogyny soapbox. Their profiles will be banned, and their comments deleted, soon enough, but it bears mentioning that this kind of systematic gendered harassment is specifically intended, by a certain insecure and angry sub-substrata of males, to silence women’s opinions.

    “A woman doesn’t even need to occupy a professional writing perch at a prominent platform to become a target. According to a 2005 report by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since 2000, but the vilest communications are still disproportionately lobbed at women. We are more likely to report being stalked and harassed on the Internet—of the 3,787 people who reported harassing incidents from 2000 to 2012 to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse, 72.5 percent were female.”

    • expect_resistance

      Applause! Thank you goatini. Sending big hugs your way.

    • Keninmo

      Of course — lose the debate, get the comments banned. And seriously — you made up a FOURTH account now? LOL — “expect_resistance” — and you even “like” yourself yet again, and respond to yourself? Priceless. Just priceless. And disturbing, yes, and definitely pathetic also. But still priceless.

      • expect_resistance

        That’s a great example that you are a troll, or an example of narcism. Pick your choice.

        • Jennifer Starr

          I think it’s a bit of both, actually.

          • expect_resistance

            True. I thought I would narrow it down to make is easier.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m starting to think that most anti-choicers aren’t playing with a full deck. And Kenneth here definitely fits the bill.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        You keep track? Ewwww.

        • Keninmo

          It’s so obvious — I mean really, there can’t be 4 crazies like that, can there? The odds of that are pretty low, I would have to think. The odds that the same clinical pathology would show up in four different people on a single web page, out of literally billions of web pages, are astronomical. But then….well, there is you also…..

          • JamieHaman

            Got proof? No? Pretty funny accusation from a guy who keeps his Disqus account private.

          • Keninmo

            Because of the crazies like this. Too may insane stalkerooskies — seriously, just look at this thread alone. You think this nutjob wouldn’t launch into a never-ending troll across all creation in an obsessive quest?

            And if your post is meant to imply that, OH YES, there ARE four … and more!….crazies on this site. Well, that’s even more disturbing.

          • expect_resistance

            Sorry you’re wrong. The community of posters here have been here for a long time and know each other and can spot a troll in a second. The moderators know this too. So good luck with your unfounded accusations.

          • Keninmo

            LOL — that is REALLY disturbing! Seriously, you’re just trolling with that one. Nice. Real nice.

          • expect_resistance

            How is that disturbing? Explain.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I think I’d have to say that you’re really projecting at this point, Kenny.

          • Keninmo

            See below Jenny.

          • JamieHaman

            No, I don’t think so. You didn’t offer any response to my request for proof either. Who’s crazy? Who’s paranoid? It isn’t goatini.

          • lady_black

            I may be crazy, Kenny, but I’m not stupid. And there’s only one of me. And only one of all the others who will not stand mute at your pontifications and just plain bullshit. You’re probably one of the same people who thought Proposition 8 was a good case, because it’s still safe to be a bigot where women and gays are concerned. Well, it’s NOT safe anymore. Your vision of America is crumbling, and good riddance to it and to you.

          • HeilMary1

            If he had brains, he would have discerned the language style differences between us that prove we aren’t sock puppets of one person.

          • corruptintenz

            I had a public account until I was assaulted. Would be great if one didn’t need private accounts. That world does not yet exist.

          • JamieHaman

            That is horrible, and I am sorry it happened to you. There are some very valid reasons to keep an account private,
            I am also sorry that you took my comment to reflect on you. This guy was making sanity accusations, concerning the person’s posting history, while hiding his own.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Dr. K. diagnoses the Universe. Ho hum.

          • fiona64

            Project much, 5×5?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Speaking of trolls, I received a notification on Youtube this morning that someone named ‘Mac R’–Macrstratum–had shared my channel on their Google Plus page. Being that I don’t actually upload videos or use my YouTube Channel for anything more important than my playlist of Scarecrow and Mrs King videos and TV theme songs (yes, I’m strange), so I was a mite curious as to why anyone would share it. When I went to his Google Plus Page I found out why. Because I had made a pro-choice comment about Mississippi anti-choicer Roy McMillan, he decided to share my channel on his page under the heading of ‘Abortion’, which apparently he’s been doing to people making pro-choice comments. I promptly blocked him, along with everyone in his circle, and he’s now blocked from seeing my YouTube channel and I reported the post as well. What exactly was he trying to do, though? Intimidate me in some way or get others to harass me? I know this is rambling but it just strikes me as bizarre.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Would creep me out.

      • expect_resistance

        Good idea to block him because it sounds like stalking. It’s creepy.

      • JamieHaman

        Blocking and reporting are the best things you could have done! Good for you to protect yourself! Probably an encouragement to ‘others’ to stalk and harass while he keeps his hands clean.
        Thank you Jennifer for the warning, and thank you for being smart enough to protect yourself. Wish more women would do that.

        • Arekushieru

          Um, I usually really like your posts, Jamie, but that last sounds a lot like victim-blaming.

          • JamieHaman

            How do you see that? Trying to be objective here (not easy for my own posts) What I see is me commending her for protecting herself, and pro choice advocates. What makes you see this is vic blaming?

          • Lieutenant Nun

            It was the ‘ more women’ part. Just say that people in general should play safe ;p

          • JamieHaman

            Thanks for clearing that up. I was at a loss on that one.

          • corruptintenz

            This is a deficit in the reader of the post, not a deficit in the post or the poster.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I disagree. Talking to people about self defense and how to play smart is not victim blaming. The lines can be fuzzy, but in this case I do not think that Jamie was in the wrong.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I re-read. I see now. “Wish more women would protect themselves’ – it makes it sound like people who don’t ‘act smart’ deserve whatever happens to them. I took a charitable reading, and just put it down to poor wording:P

          • corruptintenz

            It doesn’t make it sound like that at all.

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, yeah, it does. More evidence of your MISOGYNY. After all, it’s apparent that you don’t think that implications of responsibility are inherently wrong only when they are applied to WOMEN. Kthxbainow, misogynistic hypocrite.

          • corruptintenz

            Uh, no it doesn’t. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy. Not very convincing, let alone ethical.

          • goatini

            He’s an MRA derailer. Best to flag it and ignore it.

      • Lieutenant Nun

        Wow

    • Encopretic

      Hey, looks like you got what you wished for.

      You got all dissenting opinions deleted. How tolerant of you.

      • Jennifer Starr

        They kind of got themselves deleted when they started throwing insults around.

        • Encopretic

          I saw a lot of the posts before they were deleted and they weren’t the only one throwing around insults. In fact, HeilMary called him a Nazi, pedophiler, murderer, and a rapist.

          So if throwing insult is your criteria for deleting comments I think a bit of housecleaning is in order. Ban HeilMary1.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m not a moderator or an administrator. Even if I were, I wouldn’t ban HeilMary1.

          • Encopretic

            Why not? I thought you opposed people throwing insults around?

            Oh, and after reading the thread again (what’s left of it) it appears goatini was throwing around a bunch of insults too. Ban goatini?

          • Arekushieru

            Did she say that was her ONLY criteria? Reading comprehension fail, again. Besides, it really DOES matter who initiated a conflict and the context in which the conflict arises, unlike what bully parents and children would LIKE you to believe, mmkay?

          • Jennifer Starr

            This is a private message board and they can ban or not ban whomever they like. And HeilMary1 is a valued member of this board–we like her. Feel free to mourn your missing trolls, because trust me–no one else is.

          • goatini

            Abusers usually think “tolerance” = allowing egregious abuse without protest, and accepting vicious slander without comment.

          • corruptintenz

            I don’t know that the goal is to cultivate discussion, be it insulting or not, but rather to create an echo chamber. To that end, it seems a sound strategy.

          • Arekushieru

            Hm, nope, considering that MANY of us disagree on MANY things, here. That your little mind can’t comprehend that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not INHERENTLY in complete agreement with anyone else, is YOUR problem, not ours. And, any time someone comes on here demanding that women’s rights be taken away is a FAR more egregious INSULT than any WE can provide. SFS.

          • corruptintenz

            What are you claiming I expect people to agree with me on? The trouble is, that inmates of the echo chamber, go deaf rather quickly.

          • goatini

            This is a reproductive justice website, and not your personal soapbox to commandeer, to blat MRA garbage. The Internet has no dearth of misogynistic, abusive hate speech as regards women’s equality, and women’s civil, human and Constitutional rights. There’s no imminent danger that we might not have enough exposure to said hate speech. Concern trolling has been so noted.

          • corruptintenz

            Am I commandeering a soapbox? What is my position? Am I misogynistic? What is my gender? On what basis do you make that claim?If you are making no claim as to my gender, views on sexual identity, and or human/legal rights, what is the point of your post?

          • fiona64

            Poor little 5×5, cruising to be banned under this sockpuppet handle as well …

      • goatini

        Abusers usually think “tolerance” = allowing egregious abuse without protest.

    • corruptintenz

      Can you cite the report?

      • goatini

        Does your Google not work?

        • corruptintenz

          Does your mind not work? Can I take that as there is no report? The burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim.

          • Arekushieru

            Demanding cites for claims for something that will never affect you, is an example of misogyny. And she DID fucking provide the report for you, Pew Research Center. So, boohoo, more evidence of your MISOGYNY.

          • corruptintenz

            That the burden of proof falls with those making the positive claim is a demand of rationality, not an example of misogyny. The Pew Research Center is not a report. I have been around too long to expect a higher level of rationality from anyone. It is aspirational only to expect it from anyone. Regardless of my expectations, that ‘level of exitcitude’ is a rational standard, not my subjective standard. Can I take it that there is no report?

          • goatini

            Textbook example of attempting to derail the discussion with repetitive circular arguments on minutiae, with a soupçon of condescending psuedo-“logic”. I’ve been to the MRA Derailing Rodeo before.

          • corruptintenz

            Textbook example of undermining one’s position with baseless claims.

          • goatini

            I fully understand that you’re not too lazy to take the 20 seconds to enter a keyword search. I also fully understand that you deeply desire to derail the discussion with repetitive circular arguments on the report minutiae. I’ve been to the MRA Derailing Rodeo before.

          • corruptintenz

            Is there a report to be cited? Is there a reason it is not being cited? If it doesn’t exist, why claim it does?

  • Keninmo

    It’s been a blast. I’m still not convinced that there isn’t just one obsessed Sybil nutjob, but if there are 4-5 or 6 of you in an insane clown posse, then Lord knows you are beyond hope. Just don’t have a total meltdown when the SCOTUS ruling hits the fan this summer like you did over Citizens United. Of course, you wouldn’t even know what CU was if your Personal Jesus hadn’t waved it in front of the Progressive crazies.

    MoveOn, ICPs, MoveOn! Been fun and you simply demonstrated what I suspected — collections of rageboys / ragegirls with a boatload of bigotry, a bag full of Daily Kos talking points, and sadly not a whole lot of actual intellectual thought. If you are ever going to really make strides forward, you need to work on your logic — making coherent, supported cases is essential. Ceding the field to the crazy fringe amongst you like crazymary / goathead / jenny / et. al. may play well amongst your little clique here, but when you spout 9/11 truther garbage, religious bigotry, you lose. And Good Lord, don’t let your other Progressives hear you use gay themes as negative put-downs — my God, you will get eaten live by your own kind.

    Cheers!

    • Jennifer Starr

      Wow–this is just basically one big rambling troll whine here, Kind of pitiful.

      • expect_resistance

        I didn’t even read what he said. Same old crap.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Basically what he said was this : rageboys, ragegirls, wah, wah you’re all so mean to me, you’re so angry (quite a bit of projection there on his part)–at which point he announced that he was taking his toys and stomping off home–like you said, same old crap.

          • expect_resistance

            :)

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Reality always trumps Kenny. I got kicked off dailyKos for typing ” boy, you are a c**t ” >sic< and refusing to apologize.
        He is stung by our thought that he has not one women he knows intimately. Good. Now he knows how obvious his need and spleen is. Another good.
        And another one bites the dust.

      • fiona64

        Back in the day, we called these “pail and shovel” posts … as in “Well, if you don’t want to play just the way I want to, I’m taking my pail and shovel and leaving the beach.” It is indeed the last whine of the troll … and they do it because they want people to tell them not to go. If they really wanted to leave, they would just do it.

    • expect_resistance

      Last words from the sinking ship of the GOP/conservatives/tea-party. Good riddance.

    • fiona64

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, loser-boy!