‘Hobby Lobby’ Is Part of a Greater War on Contraception


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

Hobby Lobby’s complaint in the case that the Supreme Court decided on Monday morning is that the company and its founders don’t think Hobby Lobby employees should be able to spend their own earned insurance benefits on contraception; the company wants to be able to offer a plan that doesn’t meet the minimum federal requirements on contraception coverage. Hobby Lobby argues that even though there is no scientific evidence to back this contention up, contraception methods like the intrauterine device (IUD) and emergency contraception work by killing fertilized eggs, and they claim to believe that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of an actual baby.

That’s the ostensible reason. However, it’s important to remember that Hobby Lobby is not acting alone. Rather, the company is the official plaintiff (along with the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation) in a case that is part of a larger legal attack from the Christian right on contraception access. While contraception is largely non-controversial among the general public, chipping away at contraception access—particularly when it’s female-controlled, and particularly when it’s used by young or low-income women—has become a major part of the anti-choice agenda.

Make no mistake: They are coming for your birth control.

On their face, anti-contraception arguments from the Christian right tend to focus on hand-wringing about fertilized eggs and the imaginary assaults upon them. But when speaking to each other, anti-choice activists tend to be more open about how it’s all about sex. Though there’s zero scientific evidence to prove this, the theory is that if people—well, let’s be honest, women—didn’t have access to contraception, they would stop having sex. Or at least, they’d keep it at the minimum necessary to procreate, but no more. Less sex is considered a self-evidently good thing. Sometimes these folks even trot out phony concerns about how women are degrading themselves with all this screwing around.

A perfect, nay platonic example of this was on display at the National Right to Life Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, over the weekend. Joy Pinto, a right-wing talk radio host and the manager of a crisis pregnancy center in Birmingham, Alabama, gave a talk on opening day about the evils of contraception and how women were harmed because, she appears to believe, having sex in and of itself is bad for women.

“I have the privilege on a daily basis—being the director of a pregnancy medical center—to see the wreckage of humanity that walks in my door, because they have bit the apple, they have believed the lie that this government, that all of the politics, that even some churches tell them,” she ranted. “That it’s OK to go use contraception, it’s OK to use abortion as a backup birth control.”

Working herself into a lather, she added, “There is a ‘war on women,’ but we’re not waging it. It’s coming from the pit of hell, like it did in the book of Genesis, when he told the women—when she bit the apple, he said, ‘You will not die.’”

Faux concern for women? Check. Implying that women have no sexualities of their own and are only having sex because someone else told them to? Check. Fantasies of the halcyon days prior to reliable contraception when women didn’t have sex and never had a need for abortion? Check. A hefty and blatant reminder that, at its core, the anti-choice movement is about flouting the First Amendment and imposing a narrow fundamentalist version of Christianity through government force on non-believers? Check.

These were not the rantings of someone who was accidentally slipped into the program. Pinto was one of the main speakers at the event, one of the superstars of the anti-choice movement put there to draw a crowd. This isn’t a marginal person, speaking from the sidelines, but someone presenting from a position of authority and addressing what has become the mainstream belief amongst anti-choice activists. (Not, to be clear, your ordinary person who claims to be “pro-life” or may even support banning abortion, but the activists who are deeply invested in this issue.)

This is the agenda we are up against.

I realize it’s tempting to minimize this and say that they aren’t all that bad—that things can’t be that bad. And it’s true that, so far, we’re not seeing any moves from the anti-choice movement to outright ban contraception, or even to ban female-controlled versions like the pill and the IUD for which they have a special hatred. But that’s because, while they do spout endless fantasies about their version of paradise where icky sex mostly goes away (their paradise being hell for the rest of us, of course), anti-choice activists are not stupid. They know that rolling out a hardline anti-contraception agenda is going to cause most Americans to shut down and laugh them out of the room.

So instead, the strategy is to cast around, looking for certain soft spots, places where they can attack contraception access, making it harder for women to get while assuring everyone that they are not actually out to get rid of their contraception. Target young women or poor women first, like the college women Sandra Fluke was defending or women who rely on government-subsidized contraception. Insinuate that these women’s sexual lives are improper and should be policed from outside. Gradually widen the net by using “religious liberty” as a fig leaf to grant women’s bosses veto power over their health-care coverage, injecting their boss’ opinion about their private sex life into their medical decision making. Chip chip chip. Bit by bit, they can make us accustomed to the idea that contraception is “controversial” and whether or not you get pregnant is a matter of public debate instead of a private choice.

Why should they doubt that this strategy will work? It took four decades, but the chipping away strategy has started to pay off in the war on abortion access, with many states on the verge of having no abortion providers whatsoever. They may never be able to get contraception banned, but they can definitely do some serious damage to women’s ability to access it. They are waging a “war on women,” after all, so every woman felled by unwanted pregnancy is a victory in and of itself.

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • Renee Goodwin

    I’ve got tears in my eyes over the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case, the country just took a giant step, back towards the fifth century.
    The Supreme Court set a precedent that it is lawful by the Supreme Court’s standards to discriminate against women, over-ride their personal beliefs, as long as you are doing it for “religious” reasons. This is not going to end well and it is definitely going to get worse before it gets better, if I believed in “god” I would be praying that he would “rapture” all five of the cons on the Supreme Court right now, so that President Obama could put some real Constitutional Scholars on the Court in their stead.

    • Shan

      “The Supreme Court set a precedent that it is lawful by the Supreme
      Court’s standards to discriminate against women, over-ride their
      personal beliefs, as long as you are doing it for “religious” reasons.”

      Exactly. Because the ruling specifically stated it was only about contraception and couldn’t extend to refusing for religious reasons to cover any other medical issues. Because men might get those, I suppose.

    • Karie Ryan Ordway

      I cried too.

      I cried for my granddaughters. I cried because they will never know the freedom I grew up with. I cried when I saw pictures with throngs of women cheering this decision which hurts their sisters, daughters, nieces, and friends. I cried when I saw people happy that a Christian employer’s religious liberty trumps that of their employees (most of which are probably women). I cried when I saw the SCOTUS hears cases based on beliefs and not facts and evidence concerning birth control used solely by women.

      I cried too.

      • Renee Goodwin

        Those idiots cheering are too stupid to realize this will someday affect them negatively, without the power of an open mind they are unable to imagine the future this could create

      • Metsjetsduke

        The freedom you grew up with ? what freedoms were taken away? O My women could not be more dramatic about this. Cry away hunny. You are so oppressed because the Supreme Court said only 16 of 20 contraceptives would be fully covered, cry please cry. Laughable.

        • Shan

          “the Supreme Court said only 16 of 20 contraceptives would be fully covered,”

          If you think that’s what they said, you haven’t been paying attention.

          • Metsjetsduke

            please tell me what freedoms/ rights were taken away. I love women. I have a beautiful wife, a daughter , a sister, a mother, a mother in law. I do no hate women. I just want to know what freedoms or rights they have been denied.

          • Shan

            Someone else will have to answer you, I’m afraid. The whole thing has me so exhausted and disappointed I just don’t have the energy today to take yet another guy’s hand and walk him through a FEM101 class. Maybe some other time.

          • fiona64

            The right to full access to medical care.

            Not that you care.

          • nettwench14

            Their right to be treated for one of the many illnesses that affect women’s reproductive systems, that are treated with the many different forms of hormonal medication often called birth control but used for many other things. A condom will not fix endometriosis or ovarian cysts or heavy bleeding. The women you know will just have to suffer if they can’t afford treatment.

          • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

            The right to not get pregnant and still have Heterosex; but aside from that it’s a National Right affirmed by the greater number – viz., the voice of the National Culture – that there are too many people and if women are willing to forego this then they are doing something good for their country. What I find ironic is that a subgroup of Xtians that also happen to be ruthlessly exploiting humanity via capitalism pray to 5 men for an audience and then appeal to the pity of these same 5 weak minded men-Judges and their prayer to these men essentially says: protect our common weak mindedness for the sake of US, the General Welfare of the Nation by the voice of the National Culture is irrelevant declare it so in the name of our political beliefs disguised as religious precepts also written by an equally small group of men. Someone also ought to have indicated how many cases this Court denies on a regular basis and out of all of those regarding actual living people, they chose this one

        • fiona64

          Hey, dumbfuck? Guess what? You’re WRONG. It covers every form of contraception. That was confirmed today. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly

        • goatini

          Yeah, I’m betting you’re one of the Gate D habitues at MetLife Stadium.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/sports/20iht-FANS.1.8402224.html?_r=0

        • Karie Ryan Ordway

          What was taken away from my granddaughters (who are 8 and 12 so don’t get pervy, sports fan and start screaming about sluts paying for their own birth control) is the freedom to choose whatever birth control works best for them without the religious interference of their employers. What the Court did was grant employers religious beliefs precedence over its employee’s religious beliefs. The ruling was not based on whether Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs were better than their employees religious beliefs. It was based soley on fact that business owners have more standing in front of the court than their employees. Got that so far, or do I need to switch to crayon? Let me explain it a little simpler for you: The employee’s religious convictions have just been subjugated to the religious convictions of their employer. This is discrimination plain and simple. While the federal gov’t can’t favor/promote one religion over another, it just gave license to religious employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. In particular, their female employees. Religious liberty is actually now religious privledge and has been granted to some, but not all. Brace yourself, Tiger, but freedom of religion also means freedom from religion because if you can’t be free from other people’s religion, you aren’t free to practice your own. The Court just turned that upside down and has made the employees of religious employers subject to the beliefs of their boss. Those to which freedom from religion has been taken away from is the women, little man. The fact that you do not understand that the women you profess to love have just had their freedom of choice curtailed by an employer’s totally erroreous religious belief leads me to believe you took a ball to the head too many times. You accuse me and other women of being dramatic and make fun of us when we decry the loss of our full 1st Amendment rights, but the one thing I cannot abide is a ignorant man braying like a donkey proving to all the world that he doesn’t know what’s going on or who it affects. The freedom in which I grew up in granted the same health care benefit to both men and women as part of a compensation package. Employer and employee practiced their own faith or lack of one in private and did not impose their beliefs upon one another. The freedom with which I grew up with did not allow an employer to discriminate and then disallow a female employee’s choice of contraception. Good grief man, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg wrote a scathing 31 page dissent about how this ruling violates the Constitution protections for women and you have reduced this issue to a trivial matter like a women being crushed because she can only choose between 16 kinds of nail polish instead of 20. Indefensible ignorance.

          • Sonofa

            Ma’am, no one took away anything from your daughters. If by chance they need one of the four not covered they can pay for it out of pocket. It is that simple. I agree that Hobby Lobby is a bit hypocritical due to the investing in such companies but there is no law in being a hypocrite. I have to pay for certain prescriptions out of pocket at times. No problem, pay for it like I would toothpaste or any other necessity. Relax and start fighting for the removal of the Patriot Act if you are truly concerned with loosing rights.

          • Rainbow Walker

            I’ll say it again: the employees foot the bill for their insurance, not the employer. So the employers are picking insurance companies who follow their delusions. You are making them [employees] pay twice. That like me [being the employer] saying you can’t buy boxers with the money I give you. Stick to tiddy whities. They are dictating what we can do with our own damn money. And insurance companies should cover all scripts, that’s what we pay them for. You are allowing them to jerk you around.

            And yes the Patriot Act needs the door. Another screw up by your side of the aisle.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, did you even fucking read? Her daughters are fucking EIGHT AND TWELVE???

          • Unicorn Farm

            “agree that Hobby Lobby is a bit hypocritical due to the investing in such companies but there is no law in being a hypocrite.

            There should a law against hypocrisy when the fundamental premise of your argument, that you brought before the Supreme Court, is that your “religious beliefs” are soooooo sincere that you can’t bear- that they are “substantially burdened”- by your having to elect a health insurance plan that allows your employees to obtain contraceptives.

            Honestly, you might be ok with being lied to, but I’m not, and the women commenting on this website are not. If a Christian claimed to be pro-life, but then had an abortion, would you believe that that person’s religious beliefs were sincere, and thus, entitled to legal protection? If you do, you’re too stupid to be helped.

          • nettwench14

            How about the fact that they always covered these things until they were approached by lobbyists and lawyers? How does that make sense. This was done with NO good reason, the justices set aside their own common sense.

          • Timothy Griffy

            Part of the problem there is that no one challenged the sincerity of Hobby Lobby’s convictions. I don’t think it wold have mattered much though. Other cases were waiting in the wings, and they would have found someone who’s beliefs were beyond question.

          • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

            Thinking about this more I really have no idea -e,g, what rational basis this “belief” refers to. If you could use the Bible as authority for this, did they site some express provision in it’s text? So that now provisions from the Bible are ground to strike down an act of the National Legislature? So what exactly does this belief allude to? We believe that the 1st Amendment precludes Congress from appropriating money for birth control? If not then that would solve the issue – i.e., make Birth Control free. Otherwise, does the Bible actually state somewhere The Lord Sayeth Xtian capitalists shalt not allow insurance companies to use their company to distribute funds for birth control? Or is there some exception from strict construction that allows for interpretation {tic}

          • Timothy Griffy

            The don’t cite a biblical text about it. The Bible says absolutely nothing about abortion and contraception. Sola scriptura Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to these issues. (Note: Catholics, the Orthodox, and certain Protestant traditions do not claim sola scriptura; they have to be dealt with differently.) In practice, there is some exception from strict construction that allows for interpretation: if they don’t like it, they just ignore it or twist it until it becomes something they agree with.

          • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

            Scalia, Thomas and Alito did not surprise me they vote for junk like this all the time, Kennedy is extremely disappointing

          • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

            As I stated above (in part) The prayer of these Xtian capitalists to 5 weakminded men that happen to be Judges was/is this “protect our common weak mindedness for the sake of US, the General Welfare of the Nation by the voice of the National Culture is irrelevant declare it so in the name of our political beliefs disguised as religious precepts also written by an equally small group of men” and these 5 men said, your prayer is answered. You ought to at least be consistent if you wish to rely on the voice of the National Culture to rescind “The Patriot Act” for you as one person are affirming the power of 5 men to say that that voice is again equally irrelevant. There are too many people, we don’t need more especially those born to poor people.

          • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

            Brava, especially this “It was based soley on fact that business owners have more standing in front of the court than their employees”. As it is with all of Party Occupied government. It’s all about business, religion is merely a pretense. We’re in business, we are Xtians, we are Holier Than Thou.

        • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

          So in your humble opinion is unwanted pregnancy punishment for sex or merely the wanton desire of Liberal-conservatives to want more consumers and taxable units.

      • Sonofa

        You cried? really? Because they have to pay f/or their own? I just looked it up, birth control starts at $3.77 per month at Walmart. Good grief, there are other more important freedoms to worry about. Patriot Act, now that should make you cry. The day I no longer supported Obama was the day he reinforced it instead of abolishing it. Wake up America!!!

        • fiona64

          Hey, dumbfuck … let me rectify yet another clear gap in your education. When it comes to hormonal contraception, once size does not fit all. Not every woman can use every pill. I’m glad I was able to help you learn something today.

        • Arekushieru

          And sometimes 3.77 cents will provide a meal for a family of three. Sometimes the Walmart is too far away and these people don’t have a vehicle with which to drive. Oops, classist as WELL as misogynist? Colour me UNsurprised.

          • nettwench14

            Anne Rice
            Make no mistake: all public debate about abortion and birth control in America is a class issue. It’s about imposing one’s beliefs on the lower middle class, the working class and the poor. It’s about well-heeled judges, lobbyists, legislators and religious leaders using their power not to affect the rights or choices of their economic peers — because they can’t –but rather to police the less fortunate whose reproductive choices can be severely impacted by regulations suppressing public clinics, Planned Parenthood and health insurance coverage. It is important for us to keep this in mind. The Hobby Lobby decision is no exception to this.

        • Karie Ryan Ordway

          Okay, you’ve been laser focused on steering this issue away from my original post by insinuating that I’m not quite bright enough to understand covered and not-covered services, paying out of pocket and so forth. Also, that I don’t understand what’s really important.
          Keeping my granddaughter’s 1st Amendment rights safe from religious intrusion was what my post and tears were all about. Did you choose not to see what the post was about, or did you read it through the lens of Confirmation Bias?
          That is also what the four dissenting judges were also focused on. This will never be a win-win situation when one’s religious beliefs can be legally imposed upon another. Especially in a work place environment. The Court gave into religious bias when it awarded HL et al, the right to withhold a benefit from an employee based on an employer’s religious belief. If the employee holds different beliefs, their’s are now subjugated to their boss’ by virture of what… the fact that they are your boss or that somehow a boss’ beliefs is entitled to more 1st Amendment protection than yours?
          Because the court made clear that no other medical care except contraception can be subject to religious belief, men will never experience a religious boss impose his beliefs of hormonal birth control on him. (He may, however, feel the effects of that through his wife’s experience.) This ruling targets women because almost all contraception is made to be used exclusively by women and dismisses their right to equal protection by making them vunerable to the religious whims of their employers.
          You may think that a woman losing the full protection of her 1st Amendment rights is great thing, because now she has the *freedom* (insert hearts, flowers, rainbows and butterflies here) to go buy whatever kind of contraception she favors for herself. But that’s not what this is about. While you concern yourself with the Patriot Act, one of the wisest of the justices, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, had this to say in her dissent:

          “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons who subscribe to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of these corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations… the distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.” and:

          “Approving some religious claim while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be percieived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude”.

          You’ve done your best to turn this issue into a Red Herring by demeaning me and others and laughing at our concerns because you can’t/won’t accept that this decision by the Court has immediate and far reaching consequences for women because the conservative and very religious justices have granted religious privledge to holders of a particular set of beliefs over all others.

          If you had any sense, you’d cry too.

        • Timothy Griffy

          It’s not just the cost of the script. It is also the doctors visits and the various tests one needs *before* the script is written. Coverage for these can now be denied if under the ruling if done for the purpose of obtaining contraception. Even for a generic Pill, the costs of contraception can run into hundreds of dollars per year.

      • nettwench14

        I don’t have a uterus anymore and I cried. I’m still in shock. I’m as angry as I was during the Sandra Fluke debacle. Angry at the lies and misinformation, tired of the idiots who say “pay for it yourself,” when it’s health insurance coverage. I’m angry at the conflation of birth control with abortion. I’m angry the separation of church and state was just undermined by 5 Catholic judges. It’s unbelievable!!

    • Rainbow Walker

      I had hoped there would be a better world for my daughter. Now I fear for her and hope she doesn’t have children. She might have a daughter born in these dark ages.

      Pretty soon these religious nuts will be hanging witches again.

      • Suba gunawardana

        On these threads I have met quite a few religious nuts itching to burn witches right now.

        • Rainbow Walker

          They might want to but at least it’s still illegal to burn someone for your religion [or any reason]. Give the gang of five on the court enough time and that too will be history.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Unfortunately yes. Before long there will be dress codes for women.

        • Ramanusia

          I don’t think they care if they’re witches or not, but merely women daring to disagree with them, with facts!

        • nettwench14

          I’m convinced Scalia would re-start the inquisition given half a chance.

  • Unicorn Farm

    I give up. I don’t want to live in this country any more.

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

      Me either. I just do not know where else to go.

      • goatini

        I’m too old for Canada to take me.

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

          Me too. But the kids are the right age. And they are ready to emigrate. They passed ready.

          • goatini

            My niece is going soon. Good for her. She’s marrying a Canadian national.

          • P. McCoy

            Start looking for ways she can carry over family members. Nice to know that there are less chances of getting shot by an angry privileged White or would be White male who’s enraged because he didn’t get the sex from some hot blonde young woman that he believed he had an

            unmitigated right to access it from! Canada has real gun control!

          • P. McCoy

            See if you can hop aboard when they get.citizenship as.a family member.

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

            Hmmm. I will check that out. Good idea.

      • P. McCoy

        The Netherlands, Canada , Germany, Denmark.

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

          Good suggestions.

          • P. McCoy

            The pleasure is mine; unfortunately I have no family and Canada has a age limit of 56 or 55 without one up there. Also, the laws differ province to province. But as ever hope springs eternal. My friend was sayimg.that we must not give up here also. She’s right- let’s not let the Taliban have us hiding in swaths of cloth.

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

            I am not giving up yet. Just thinking about how easy it would be to live in another culture. I need a few days to recover my spirit though. This was a good hard stomp they gave us.

  • fiona64

    First, I find it laughable that anyone who runs a CPC calls it a “pregnancy medical center.” 99 times out of 100, there are no medical professionals to be seen in these fronts for adoption mills.

    The thing I find fascinating about the SCOTUS decision is that it wasn’t on liberal or conservative lines: it was decided by 5 MEN, with 4 women dissenting. So, once again, men are determining what rights women have to control their own bodies.

    I was clearly naive to believe that we have ever gotten past coverture …

    • fiona64

      Reply to Elcee, in moderation:

      Sometimes Disqus hiccups. Sometimes new posters are screened before they are allowed to post willy-nilly.

      However, your post is completely visible if someone clicks the link.

      Get down off the cross, Elcee … somebody needs the wood.

      • fiona64

        Another reply to Elcee, in moderation (yet again):

        Funny … I can still see your inanities in their full glory.

        • fiona64

          And one more note to Elcee (still in moderation):

          If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know I’m not a moderator. Moderators have a little grey box next to their names that says MOD. But that’s okay, you just keep showing yourself to be a twit. I’m sure the actual moderators will have a field day with you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I can’t see any of Elcee’s posts–she sounds like she’s whining quite a bit.

          • fiona64

            She is. And she’s in moderation yet again.

            Reply to Elcee: How is it that you and your fellow loudmouths are so woefully ignorant about how compensation packages work?

            BTW, I had a tubal ligation several years ago — which was covered by my insurance, which is part of my compensation package.

            Your right to religious freedom, dearie, does not include the right to *inflict your beliefs on others.*

            (Unless, apparently, those “others” are women … since this case only applies to medications used by women.)

          • fiona64

            Reply to Elcee, in moderation, who said:

            The owners are saying they do not want to subsidize these activities
            because their religious beliefs to not allow them to in good conscience.

            THEY AREN’T PAYING FOR THEM, YOU IGNORANT TWIT. The cost of insurance is not going to go down because they are not covering BCPs (whilst still covering Viagra, BTW).

            Currently you have the right to refuse to work for closely held
            companies like Hobby Lobby, and to choose an employer based on, among
            other things, compensation packages.

            Right, because there are so many jobs out there just crying to be filled and no unemployment problem.

            Oh, wait.

            This makes the argument about religious freedom for the owners of Hobby Lobby,

            When the owners of Hobby Lobby created a business, they put a shield between themselves and their personal assets and those of the business. This is Business 101. The male members of SCOTUS have now said that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs … which is crap.

            Be careful what you wish for when you start wishing for people’s freedom to be taken away.

            Again, religious freedom does not include the right to inflict your beliefs on others. That is the problem here. You would shit yourself inside out if you were told by a Muslim employer that you had to wear a burqa. Religious freedom is a thinly disguised excuse for a bunch of conservative, anti-choice MEN to say that corporations are people and women AREN’T.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “When the owners of Hobby Lobby created a business, they put a shield between themselves and their personal assets and those of the business. This is Business 101. The male members of SCOTUS have now said that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs … which is crap.”
            THIS. A million times. The basic premise of corporate law is that “a corporation is distinct from its owner.”
            “Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA.13 The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” -Justice Ginsberg dissent.

          • A. T.

            I’d respectfully remind people they are invested in companies that make the BC they object to. This not a moral objection. (Also, they used to provide these options until Obamacare).

            This is politics, pure and simple.

            I object to murder, I didn’t develop this objection conveniently a couple of years ago.

          • Sonofa

            Yes it is, but does not change the fact that no ones rights were taken away. Cut the drama and call it what it is. A bummer for a few women who work for hobby lobby, they are now having to pay for their own, Hardly the end of the world. If you do not like it do not spend your money with hobby lobby.

          • fiona64

            “A few women”? Hobby Lobby has 561 stores nation-wide. Plus, this ruling now allows *any* employer to have a “sincerely held religious belief” that allows them do deny contraception coverage.

            Way to minimize reality, dude. And if you are one of those women employed by Hobby Lobby? It affects you 100 percent.

            Way to show both your privilege and misogyny all in one go. I’d seek help for that if I were you.

          • A. T.

            I am calling it what it is: Politics. It was not a moral objection, by anyway. It was magically discovered in time to object to Obamacare. Which is why people are angry. Some people need those kinds of birth control as others may not work for them.

            You employer should not get to choose what your insurance provides. They have no medical knowledge and not a provider.

            I don’t plan to spend my money on idiocy, no.

          • fiona64

            Reply to the idiotic Elcee (still in moderation), who wrote: Plenty of access to low cost BC out there.

            Thanks for demonstrating your complete and total ignorance. Not all forms of BC work for all women. I am sure that, with just a little effort, you could cease to be a total dumbfuck.

            You’re obviously male, BTW, with your snotty “Sore losers” comment. Yeah, it must be nice not to have any of your health care decisions questioned …

          • Ella Warnock

            I remember Elcee. She’s the one who didn’t know that removing the uterus could cause other organs to prolapse. Nuh-UH, she said! I provided links for her and she, not surprisingly, disappeared off of that thread.

            “Sore losers,” huh? Yeah, she came across as a snarky little brat (who knows nothing about anatomy & physiology).

          • fiona64

            You know, I had forgotten about that. You’re right.

          • Sonofa

            Funny, I am a male and at times have to pay out of pocket for medical RX and procedures, never once complained about it. Are you saying until now you never had to pay out of pocket for any medical expense? Why all of the sudden are you all bitching about this? Are you ladies who are .”crying” over this really wanting a job at hobby lobby so badly? THere are far worse erosions of true rights happening. But you might have to cough up a few bucks per month for meds and all of the sudden the sky is falling? DRAMA!!!!!! I am embarrassed for you.

          • fiona64

            Really? Which of your preventive care measures are you required to pay an additional co-pay for? I’m curious to know, since the ACA says that all preventive care is to be covered without an additional co-pay. Since hormonal contraception is preventive medicine for women, and can only be obtained by prescription, the Greens have sought to have *their religious beliefs* enforced on their employees by refusing to cover ::wait for it:: a) medications that they previously covered, b) medications *that they invest money in* via their stock portfolio, and c) are only used by women.

            I have no doubt that this is just fine with you, Mr. Bullshit Male Privilege. And yes, you are betraying your privilege when you behave as though a given woman in a given locale has her choice of jobs just lying around for the taking.

            Finally, my insurance (which I PAY FOR, thanks) covered my tubal ligation many years ago. My dog in the fight is that Hobby Lobby is being allowed to inflict its “religious beliefs” (which are factually inaccurate) on its employees … and to provide full coverage for men and substandard coverage for women. Do you think that the female employee’s insurance premiums are going to go down? Really?

            You also assert that hormonal contraception is just “a few bucks per month.” A Mirena IUD is $1000. If a woman works at Hobby Lobby, making minimum wage, she is taking home ::wait for it:: about $1000/month *if she works full-time.* If you think that a month’s take-home pay is “just a few bucks,” you are a bigger dumbass than I thought (and that is saying something).

            You make your misogyny very apparent with your assertion that women’s rights to full medical coverage are not “real rights.” Feh. I’m embarrassed for *you.*

          • Shan

            I wish we still couldn’t.

    • bitchybitchybitchy

      Do not forget that four of those justices are Catholic men. If there was any doubt that these men are anything other than sock puppets for their church this case ought to erase those doubts.

      • P. McCoy

        It is because the United States did not adopt the Penal Laws that Britain had for centuries, laws that kept Catholics from legally holding positions of power as well as seriously curtailing their influence in the culture and body poltics of their colonies and later Commonwealth partners eg; Canada and Australia come to mind, that we have such problems with this dysfunctional and vile misogynistic cult today. In Canada, despite a Catholic Quebec, abortion, LGBT, and contraceptives rights are a given, as well as gun control. At this point, I would strongly advise young women with skills and abilities to expat to female rights friendly countries, just as Blacks left the apartheid Southern United States for the North.

        • redlemon

          I was once asked why I study German. I said the usual: I like it. I’m good at it. It’s something that holds my interest and complements my linguistic minor. It’s a major player in the language world. It’s a major business language in my area. I heard it while growing up. It’s the language of my grandparents. And if I ever need to get the heck out of America, it gives me more options.

          I’m starting to think that last reason is probably the best reason of all.

    • Sonofa

      Wait, I read the decision, who told women they could not use certain birth control?

      • fiona64

        You must not have read the decision very clearly …

  • TheBrett

    Great post. I’ve heard similar stuff from the anti-choice conservatives about contraception, usually along the lines of “contraception makes women less likely to get married and stick with their husbands”. Which is presumably how they filter their deep reactionary anxieties about women getting more independence and control of their lives outside of “traditional” patriarchal authorities and norms.

    This has happened before, too. A lot of the state laws against abortions and contraception ended up on the books in the late 19th century/early 20th century, in a conservative backlash against women’s increasing independence and the “free love” movement (which usually meant “the right of women to their own birth control and personal sexual lives”). It won’t get that bad, but the reactionary counter-movement can make things a lot worse for a while.

    • Guest

      You forgot that this ruling is about christian-owned businesses not having to supply these drugs, the governement can supply them covered and women can buy it themselves. But you really need to force everyone in on abortion and contraception, regardless of views or? Freedom of conscience is not for everyone?

      • Jennifer Starr

        Hobby Lobby is not being forced to purchase, stock or distribute contraception. And this has nothing to do with abortion.

      • TheBrett

        One chip out of many in women’s reproductive rights. And don’t think other companies won’t try the whole “we’re a religious corporation, and that gives us the right to ignore all kinds of anti-discriminatory laws that conflict with our legal fiction’s supposed religious beliefs”. This will end up in court again.

        • Renee Goodwin

          More like a chunk than a chip imho

      • Shan

        It’s apparently only “freedom of conscience” when it applies to Christians who want to discriminate against women.

        From Ginsberg’s dissent:

        “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded
        objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants
        (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia,
        intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims,
        Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the
        lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

        “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of
        accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over
        another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was
        designed to preclude.”

        • lady_black

          Yes they can. They have opened that door. Let the lawsuits proceed.

          • Timothy Griffy

            Exactly. The decision only notes that the government *might* have compelling reasons and be doing it in the least restrictive way by requiring blood transfusions, etc., be covered. But those cases would have to be adjudicated. And under the terms of this decision, the courts would have little choice but to rule in favor of the employers because otherwise Hobby Lobby’s religion effectively becomes the established religion of the United States otherwise.

      • fiona64

        Yet another one who does not understand how compensation packages work …

        • goatini

          Or Plan B and IUDs either.

      • StealthGaytheist

        You’re free to not use BC if you don’t approve of it. You don’t have the right to put barriers in place to prevent others from using it.

        • bitchybitchybitchy

          Indeed. If Guest doesn’t want to use contraception, or to have an abortion, no one will force Guest to use either. Guest, apparently, has a problem when people disagree with his/her views and Guest’s desire to impose his/her beliefs on others.

          • Shan

            Guest was Ingrid whatever-her-name is, by the way. I saw that before it somehow changed.

          • cjvg

            Another coward who is well aware of the complete dishonesty of their “moral” convictions and therefore prefers not to have her real name attached to it

          • Jennifer Starr

            She tried to delete it–then she goes on Live Action’s board and tells everybody how ‘scared’ she is of us.

      • A. T.

        They invest in companies that make them. This is not a moral issue, it’s politics.

      • expect_resistance

        What about freedom from religion?

        • bitchybitchybitchy

          I’d vote for that.

      • DonnaDiva

        There are lots of things I don’t approve of that I have to subsidize via my taxes and even my insurance premiums. Why is your anger over women having non-procreative sex the only objection that gets accommodated?

      • cjvg

        A corporation now has regrets and feelings? How far can you desent into idiocy before it starts to bother you?

        Never mind, don’t answer that I prefer to retain some meager illusions about basic decency of the American public

      • Ella Warnock

        I was forced to fiscally support two wars I didn’t believe in. The Bush administrations cared not a whit for my freedom of conscience. Should they have? Or should I just suck it up because Bush thought he was doing gawd’s work, so that makes it morally licit according to fundagelicals? What’s so much more precious about HL’s ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ than my sincerely held pacifism?

      • lady_black

        Or the insurance company can just refuse to cooperate. That would be the best solution. The SCOTUS said HL can’t be forced to cover things they don’t like by the government. The SCOTUS didn’t say any insurer has to cooperate with HL. That falls under the column of that’s HL’s problem. They have to find such a policy, and I don’t believe any exist.

        • Timothy Griffy

          I’m not sure that will fly. In any case, as I understand it, Hobby Lobby self-insures.

    • kitler

      Exactly.

      Fetal life is just a new development. The original arguments against abortion were all concerned with female chastity.

      • Pinkladyapple

        Well “pro life” sounds a hell of a lot better than those-slutty-whores-should-just-keep-their-legs-closed-until-marriage. The idea and mindset amongst anti choice asshats is still the same, they’ve just adopted new terminology to attract followers and appeal to peoples emotions.

    • lady_black

      Is marriage now essential for women? I don’t THINK so. So what if women don’t get married? What do they plan to DO about it?

      • TheBrett

        I don’t think they have a clear idea of it other than some emotional fear that this is undermining Traditional Values and Marriage As They Know It – it’s the same rationale for their vitriol regarding feminism. If they try to justify it, they’ll point to imaginary Good Old Days when men and women supposedly didn’t have sex outside of marriage – or at least got married in a rush when the woman got pregnant (like Sarah Palin’s daughter).

        It’s hypocritical in the extreme, of course – most of them were sexually active, including many of them before marriage (and they used contraception). But now that they’re getting old, they’re a long ways from when they needed contraception and now feel free to be as hypocritical about it as they want to. I remember Amanda Marcotte pointing out Jill Stanek’s admission that she had used birth control to space her children as she liked, but now that she was no longer capable of having them felt free to go full anti-abortion and anti-contraception.

        • Pinkladyapple

          Cognitive dissonance, these anti choice women who rail against birth control have probably used it themselves.

      • Ella Warnock

        They have some vague notion that by restricting women’s choices in birth control, education, employment, etc. that we’ll just shrug our shoulders in defeat and go back to home, hearth and nursery. I’m not sure why they think we won’t continue to fight for rights that have been so hard won. There’s exactly one good way to get me to do the polar opposite of what you want, and that’s telling me that I must obey you. There are a lot of us out there, and they’ll have to kill me to shut me up.

  • redlemon

    Not even 15 minutes after the ruling, already people were out crowing about how great this ruling is. It’s barely noon here and I’ve already had a man tell me that pregnancy isn’t a medical condition, that if you can’t afford BC then you shouldn’t have sex, that pregnancy is a choice, and that his insurance doesn’t cover all of his medication so he wants to know why woman are so special. I predict, within the next few minutes, that he’s going to start with the “I’m pro-choice except for when it’s used for birth control…” schtick.

    It’s like a special brand of ignorance, to be totally unable to understand what is going on here.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Rita’s been trying to feed us the line of bull that pregnancy isn’t a medical condition too–what fantasy planet do these people live on?

      • Shan

        “Rita’s been trying to feed us the line of bull that pregnancy isn’t a medical condition too”

        So let’s see who wants THAT not to be covered without a co-pay, hm?

        • Jennifer Starr

          I wouldn’t put it past them to try.

        • Ella Warnock

          Okay then, it’s not a medical condition. No insurance coverage for any of it at all, no matter what kind of problems develop. And if something goes tragically wrong, sure, get treatment, but that won’t be covered either. If you have a very sick infant and/or mom, that will run into the millions.

          How much tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth would there be if they had to abide by their own ideals? They always think it’s **other** people that have to pay the freight. The first time they’re *inconvenienced* by what they thought they wanted, I can imagine their tune changing drastically.

      • redlemon

        Oh, but this guy is totally cool with BC for things like PMDD or wimmen’s hormoney stuff. That makes him logical, unlike us wimmins who want sex and our entire insurance compensation packages. He’s totally on our side.

        (I wish I was making this up *sigh*)

      • StealthGaytheist

        So Rita doesn’t go to a doctor when she gets pregnant, or when she’s in labor?

        • Jennifer Starr

          She’s had eleven children–I’d be willing to bet that at least one if not all necessitated a hospital visit. But she still says that it’s not a condition, it’s all natural-like breathing or something. Reality is not where they dwell.

          • fiona64

            Hell, after 11 children, I would bet on two things:

            1) Labor consists of the infant just falling out while she walks around, and 2) conception consists of her husband throwing a hot dog down the hallway.

          • Shan

            Aw, ew!

          • expect_resistance

            Thank you I really needed a laugh today.

            A vagina is not a clown car.

          • kitler

            Her brains fell out with each successive pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For hal in moderation, I never said ‘disease’. I said that pregnancy was a medical condition, and it is.

      • nettwench14

        They are idiots spouting talking points. If they can believe things that are not scientifically valid, it’s not m,uch of a stretch from there to say that pregnancy is not a medical condition. Then why do women need prenatal care to ensure healthy babies?

    • Jennifer Starr

      I’d be willing to bet that his insurance covers pills for when he can’t get it up, though.

    • nettwench14

      The women are worse. No one seems to understand what insurance does, and that the company isn’t ever paying for this, the insurance company is. It’s already once-removed, which should put them in the clear.

  • StealthGaytheist

    I’m just sick over the ruling.

  • A. T.

    *throws things*

  • bitchybitchybitchy

    It’s always been about controlling women, and it always will be. The so-called religious right hates and fears women. They do not view women as equal human beings to men. We have to fight.

  • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

    I gave up Hetero fucking about 14 or so years ago. The solution to this is oral sex and masturbation. Let the ruthless Xtians inherit the earth

    • Timothy Griffy

      What’s left of it anyway after global warming destroys most of it.

      • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

        Their just reward inter alia for “turning the other cheek” – it’s practically Biblical !!

  • blfdjlj

    The government can pay for the contraceptives which HL refuses to cover. This will be a minimal cost, and it formed the crux of the ruling.

    • Shan

      It’s not about the cost. HL and all the rest aren’t going to be paying any less for their premiums w/o BC and neither will their employees.

      • fiona64

        Exactly. These women are now paying for health insurance premiums and co-pays that do NOT cover everything, which means they are having to go out of pocket because a business owner wants to pretend his for-profit corporation goes to church.

        Of course, the irony is that Hobby Lobby’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” against their employees being able to access these medications doesn’t extend to them *making money on 401K investments in the companies that manufacture them …*

        • Shan

          Either that or, as the ruling said, the government can pay for them. I wonder how the taxpayers are gonna like THAT? Including the Greens, because presumably THEY pay taxes as well. ;-)

          • lady_black

            OR the insurance company can just tell HL there IS no such policy and they can go fuck themselves.

      • Renee Goodwin

        Anyone that thinks the freaking Reichwing congress is going to approve funds for birth control for women that work for “deeply religious” corporations has been snorting too much fairy dust, even though the unSupremes said that the government can pay for all that birth control, the money has to be found first, and that is another huge fight

        • Shan

          I thought they were supposed to do it via the same sort of exemption that employees of ACTUAL religious institutions were going to get their BC on their insurance, i.e., directly through the insurer and subsidized by the government. If they’re going to try to put the kibosh on ALL that for the SAME reason as Hobby Lobby by calling it “abortifacient” and trying to clobber it with the Hyde Amendment, that would be pretty horrifying.

      • lady_black

        Which is why insurance companies ought to tell HL and the rest that contraceptives WILL be covered and to go pound sand if they don’t like it. It’s not like they will even know about it, and it’s not illegal for insurance companies to refuse to offer custom plans. That was NOT part of the decision.

        • Timothy Griffy

          Then HL would simply find a company that will offer custom plans.

    • cjvg

      So why is it acceptable single out ONLY medication that women use as subject to a companies “religious” beliefs? Why are the “religious” beliefs of a corporation that abhors and forbids blood transfusions and inoculations not considered acceptably deeply held? (after all the “corporations” who hold those religious beliefs are willing to die for them when refusing to utilize those.

      Clearly it is dishonest and hypocritical to the max to claim that religious beliefs whose consequences are actually bore by those espousing them are lesser then religious beliefs for which the corporation espousing those beliefs will feel no consequences at all.

      A clear and unabashed case of gender discrimination!

    • lady_black

      I’m having doubts that HL will even be able to find an insurance company that offers such a policy, particularly one that singles out only certain types of contraception. Frankly, the insurance company should tell Hobby Lobby that there is no such policy and to suck it up, or charge them much higher premiums for “specialty policies” then turn around and provide the insured with morning after pills and IUDs behind HL’s back. It truly IS none of HL’s business what the insurer covers, so long as they aren’t charging extra for it. I would bet a shiny new nickel that HL doesn’t swing a big enough dick to force insurers to do as they say.

    • Unicorn Farm

      It did not form the crux of the ruling. Stop talking about what you don’t understand. Further, why should tax payers have to bear the costs of someone’s “religious beliefs?”

      • blfdjlj

        Maybe we can go back to the Middle Ages, erm, 2012, when employers decided themselves whether to include birth control in health insurance.

        If my employer supports gun control and refuses to buy me guns, should taxpayers buy me a gun? Would such an employer be violating the Second Amendment?

        • kitler

          Yes because a birth control pill is really just like an AR15.

          IDIOT.

          • blfdjlj

            Both are products used by millions of Americans, even as some vehemently object to them.

          • kitler

            So is Tylenol. I believe that Tylenol causes abortions and my emoyees should be prohibited from using it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What exactly does your average citizen use an AR15 for?

          • fiona64

            Terrorizing the local Sonic after getting together with a bunch of bubbas to plink tin cans. ;-)

        • Unicorn Farm

          “If my employer supports gun control and refuses to buy me guns, should taxpayers buy me a gun? Would such an employer be violating the Second Amendment?”

          What? This proposition is barely coherent. The second amendment does not provide an affirmative right to be provided with a gun, and you know it. It only prohibits government action limiting your right to carry a weapon. The ACA created an affirmative statutory right to comprehensive care services without a co-pay (including birth control pills) in these employer-provided plans. You’re comparing apples and oranges, but of course, you have so little idea of what you’re talking about that you can’t see that.

        • Timothy Griffy

          Probably, if you are a white heterosexual evangelical Christian male.

    • Timothy Griffy

      I wonder if the conservatives celebrating this decision realizes that it gives the government the go ahead to further socialize health care.

      Come to think of it, it is decisions like this that makes me think should have gone single payer while we had the chance.

  • P. McCoy

    Amanda is right; this is about sex, about women’s right to enjoy sex without pregnancy. The Christian Taliban won’t rest until American women are as marginalized in this and other areas of life as are women living in Moslem countries. Women and enlightened Men in America will have to decide do they want to live this way.

  • expect_resistance

    I’ve been without Internet access all day and just learned about this horrible ruling. I’m so mad right now I think my blood is boiling. Amanda is right they are coming for our birth control. This sucks!

  • kitler
    • slingshot2hell

      huh? Birth control is not abortion. Unless not planting a seed is the same as uprooting a plant. And in that case, condoms and abstinence are ALSO abortion…

      • kitler

        Their “deeply held religious belief” is that birth control = abortion.

        • prolifemama

          “Their ‘deeply-held religious belief’ is that birth control = abortion.

          No, only that some contraceptives can act as abortifacients, by causing the endometrium to become hostile to a newly-conceived human being, not allowing him/her to implant, directly causing his or her death.

          Neither is this a mere ‘belief’ -it’s pharmaceutical fact. Plan B’s Patient Information Pamphlet includes this information.

          • goatini

            YOU think that innocent female US citizens are LESS valuable than bodily waste that gets flushed down the toilet. YOU think innocent female US citizens deserve NOTHING better than a SEWER.

            The VAST majority of fertilized eggs never even implant in the uterine lining in the first place, and are sloughed off as bodily waste and flushed down the toilet.

            YOU elevate what amounts to SEWAGE over an innocent living, breathing female US citizen and her rights.

            The only thing more disgusting than a fetus fetishist gestational slaver, is a fertilized egg fetishist gestational slaver.

            Neither Plan B nor IUDs are “abortifacients”. You, Hobby Lobby, and the vicious vile misogynist Opus Dei faction of SCOTUS have imposed lying, scientifically FALSE propaganda upon innocent female US citizens. Thank God there are MANY reproductive freedom fighters – MANY more than the tiny minority of screeching, lying gestational slavers – who will make sure that this un-American, un-Constitutional attack on female citizens WILL be set right.

            The GOTP has just lost, except for the radical theocratic extremist nut jobs, the womens’ vote for the foreseeable future.

          • kitler

            Wrong.

            Scientifically inaccurate.

          • Shan

            “No, only that some contraceptives can act as abortifacients, by causing
            the endometrium to become hostile to a newly-conceived human being, not
            allowing him/her to implant, directly causing his or her death.”

            You have been told multiple times this is inaccurate, given links to studies showing otherwise, and asked to provide proof of this “pharmaceutical fact” (is that even a real thing?).

            I’ll save you the time and tell you this again: There IS no scientific proof of the “hostile endometrium” because it was always just a GUESS, way back in the 1960s when the original BCP came out. Over the past nearly a decade, ACTUAL science has been done that proves that the “hostile endometrium” does not exist.

            The PIP is leftover 50yo marketing material, not scientific proof.

          • cjvg

            Your religious beliefs are not mine! You have no right to inflict your personal delusions upon my body!

            If you arte a corporation you have created a destiny and legally significant separation between you and your company, this is why you are not personally responsible for any of the misdoings of said company.

            However if you argue that that separation is non existent when it coms to your personal beliefs and convictions, you can no longer argue that it does exist when that same company (you are so closely intertwined with that it must express your personal beliefs as if it is you) becomes financially legally morally and ethically liable for damages done by said company

          • lady_black

            It includes that information, but the information is FALSE and outdated. In other countries, the packaging information has been changed to reflect the body of studies showing that, taken after ovulation, Plan B is no better than doing nothing. The same number of women who took Plan B after ovulation got pregnant as those who were using nothing. So it’s not “pharmaceutical fact” as you believe it is. Teva hasn’t bothered changing the packaging here in the USA because of FDA red tape. Plan B works primarily by inhibiting ovulation, and secondarily by thickening cervical mucus to block sperm. IUDs work one of two ways. The hormonal IUDs work like other hormonal methods (pills, rings, shots, implants, patches, etc.) The copper IUD kills sperm. That’s it. NONE work by preventing implantation.

          • fiona64

            The information is false and outdated (as has been cited numerous times). Not that you care, since it suits you to promote lies.

    • cjvg

      Even if it was, corporations do not have feelings or emotions so they can not have religious beliefs.
      If , like the supreme court alleges, the veil between this company and its owners is that thin that their religious feelings must be expressed by their corporation,they should no longer be able shield their assets behind this virtually non existent veil either.

  • JakobFabian01

    The Court has empowered corporations by endowing them with the power to escape their social responsibility for allegedly religious reasons. It has not empowered individuals in any way whatsoever, religious or otherwise, unless they happen to own corporations. In summary, the Court has expanded institutional power at the expense of individual power. There is nothing to celebrate here.

  • Shan

    Have you not noticed how they’re being defunded?

    • fiona64

      Elcee doesn’t care, because he’s a bigoted, misogynistic POS who thinks that all women can just run over to WalMart and get their IUDs for $4.

      • Ella Warnock

        I got mine out of a vending machine, the one with the claw (ooo, the claaaw!). I was going for the Ortho Novum, but you know how it is with that crazy claw.

        • fiona64

          And isn’t it good that (which nutter anti-choice male was it?) told you that you can just install that sucker yourself? ;-)

          • Ella Warnock

            Through the miracle of youtube you, too, can DIY your IUD! Can I get an amen!

          • kitler

            I am enjoying your convo with Myintx

          • Ella Warnock

            She’s quite the squirmy worm when you get her pinned down, just not quite squirmy enough.

          • kitler

            Five by five

  • skadams

    Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to cover 4 types of abortifacients. They DO cover contraceptive pills. It’s a free country and people should be able to choose how they want to run THEIR company. Anyone who doesn’t agree, also has the rights of living in a free country to not work there and not to patronise their business. Even if Hobby Lobby didn’t offer birth control pills, Walmart has a $4 prescription drug plan. Just go buy them there.

    • Shan

      In case you hadn’t noticed, this isn’t just about Hobby Lobby or the 4 types of contraception they object to.

    • Jennifer Starr

      The four types are contraceptives– not abortifacients.

    • fiona64

      They’re not abortifacients, they’re contraceptives. And, interestingly enough, Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that *make them.* I guess their “sincerely held religious beliefs” aren’t that sincere.

      Thanks for betraying your complete ignorance about how hormonal contraceptives work, though; one size does not fit all.

    • goatini

      My health insurance plan should cover my medicine. Period.

    • fiona64

      This just in: you are WRONG. The ruling is now being interpreted to mean that any contraception, not just the four mentioned in the suit.

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly

      Read it (if you can).

    • Everybodhi

      Everyone cannot take cheap hormonal birth control pills, the copper IUD is the safest most effective method for many women, costing $1000+ without coverage, up front, cash.
      Hobby Lobby had no problem covering all the methods they now oppose, up until the ACA passed and they filed suit.
      Their employees, including the ones that agree with their religious beliefs, are given a 401k invested in the very contraceptions they can no longer receive, making them profit off the methods they oppose as a part of their pay benefit package.
      They primarily receive their goods from China, profiting people with some appalling policies by Jesus standards.
      Their ethics and so called morality suck.

      • skadams

        The company states they re-examined their insurance policies and found out they were unknowingly providing these abortion pills. Be that as it may, no one is forcing their employees to work there and no one is forcing their customers to shop there. It’s a craft store, go buy your baskets and art supplies somewhere else.

    • Everybodhi

      “It’s a free country and people should be able to choose how they want to run THEIR company. ”
      That’s the same thing people said when they were no longer allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.
      Owning a business should not give you rights to deny people civil and equal rights.

    • Everybodhi

      “It’s a free country and people should be able to choose how they want to run THEIR company. ”
      If you own a restaurant, most states say you cannot allow people to smoke in your restaurant, some states say you cannot serve alcohol on Sunday.
      Owning a business should not exempt one from the law.

      • skadams

        A bipartisan bill introduced by Chuck Schumer and passed by every Democrat in the Senate and signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives Hobby Lobby the right to not provide abortificants on the health insurance plan. The civil rights act of 1964 protects African Americans from discrimination to public accommodations, federal assistance, and equal opportunity. These are on the federal level. Alcohol on Sundays and smoking in public places is state by state. Hobby Lobby is actually following federal law, Obamacare, forcing a company to provide something that goes against their religious belief, violates the religious freedom act. Hobby Lobby isn’t telling people they can’t use these types of contraceptives, they just don’t want to take part in aborting a child. A woman can go to planned parenthood, they pass those things out like candy.

        • Timothy Griffy

          And in the process discriminating against women in matters of equal opportunity and compensation.

          • skadams

            The Democrat-manufactured “war on women” narrative is bogus. The problems with democrats is they can’t run on their record. Obama stated that politicians shouldn’t make healthcare decisions for women yet Obamacare has 15 unelected members of the Independent Payment Advisory Board decide which medical treatments wil get funding, decisions that affect millions of women. Hobby Lobby isn’t telling women they can’t use abortion pills, they’re saying they don’t want to pay for it. What the he!! are taxpayers funding planned parenthood for?! You work for money compensation, Hobby lobby isn’t telling you what to do with that money. And stop with the “equal opportunity BS, Hobby Lobby hires people of both genders, all races and creeds.

          • Timothy Griffy

            I’m not a Democrat so your screed against them is pointless. You work for compensation, and Hobby Lobby is telling employees what they can do with their compensation. And they are effectively telling women what they can and can’t do with their compensation. Hobby Lobby may hire people of both genders, races, and creeds, but they compensate differently on the basis of creed and sex, doing so in such a way that they are less able to participate in the economic and social realms, including that of Hobby Lobby.

          • skadams

            You sound like a democrat and my “screed” against them isn’t pointless, and a majority agrees with me. Women have managed to obtain and use birth control without incident for decades without their place of business getting involved. Birth control is the most accessible and affordable drug. Private businesses should not be controlled by the govt to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs. The. Hobby Lobby decision upholds the principle of keeping the govt and one’s boss out of their bedroom. I have Tricare insurance, a military govt plan. They do not pay for certain types of birth control or abortifacients. So to force a private business to do so is utterly hypocritical!

          • Timothy Griffy

            Going into business is not a right. It is a privilege that is conditioned upon following the rules and regulations incident to being in business. And being in business means compensating your employees, and you don’t get a say in how that compensation is spent. In fact, it is none of your business. The Hobby Lobby decision in fact puts the boss in your bedroom and your doctor’s office and says you can spend your earnings the way your employer wants you to spend it.

          • skadams

            It’s none of your business, my business or Hobby lobby’s business. You do realize that plan B is an over the counter drug? It can be bought for $50 at Walgreens.

          • Timothy Griffy

            That’s about the same price as a Walmart–if it is actually stocked.

  • Jennifer Starr

    No one is forcing anybody to ingest contraception against their will.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Want some cheese to go with that whine?

  • Shan

    Blood transfusions (Jehova’s Witnesses). Medications or procedures involving shellfish (Jewish) or pig-derived ingredients or tissue (Jewish & Muslim). Mental health treatment (Scientologists).

    Various to most forms of medical care:

    Followers of Christ
    Faith Assembly
    Church of the Firstborn
    Christian Science
    Faith Tabernacle
    End Time Ministries
    The Believers’ Fellowship
    Jehovah’s Witnesses
    Church of God of the Union Assembly
    Church of God (certain congregations)
    First Century Gospel Church
    Full Gospel Deliverance Church
    Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
    Jesus through Jon and Judy
    Christ Miracle Healing Center
    Northeast Kingdom Community Church
    Christ Assembly
    The Source
    “No Name” Fellowship
    The Body
    1 Mind Ministries
    Twelve Tribes
    Born in Zion Ministry

    Just to name a few.

    • Sonofa

      So, why do you expect these groups to pay for what you need? Don’t like it? Don’t work for them. Don’t get suckered into the BS.

      • Rainbow Walker

        They [the employer] isn’t pay for it. The employee foots the bill for their insurance. All employers do is negotiate lower prices. And if the employer says they do foot the bill they are lying.

        In essence they are making the employee pay out the nose for their religious delusions. In violation of the establishment clause.

      • Shan

        I expect my health insurance to pay for my medical needs, as determined between myself and my physician, not as determined by my employer’s “sincere religious beliefs”. Don’t get suckered into the BS.

      • Timothy Griffy

        In a perfect world, everyone could get a job with whoever they want. Alas, in the real world you have to take whatever job you can get.

  • fiona64

    What’s that, Elcee? You’re taking your pail and shovel and leaving the beach? Bye-bye!

    • P. McCoy

      The battle isn’t over- someday soon we will start a movvement to amend the Constitution to ban religious movements that threaten the American public with religious tyranny exercised as wanting to establish a theocracy. This will cover militant Islam, Catholicism as well as right wing Evangelical Christianity. You will not be allowed to impose your beliefs on others and when you interfere in govermentaln policies designed to improve the well being of born (personhood is acquired at birth with the subsequent rights to go with it), you will be punished as enemies of the State.

  • grantal

    it is time women banned Viagra. As a woman it is against my religious beleifs. How many women have comfortable sex after menopause and how can Viagra be helpful to procreation when the wife is menopausal? Me thinks the men are cheating on their wives with younger units and or will dump the old incubator for a new one because of it. not good according to my religion.

  • fiona64

    How about this: You tell ME why Hobby Lobby’s owners should have the right to inflict their religious beliefs on their employees.

    • Sonofa

      They aren’t, they just do not have to pay for it. FREE FREE FREE, good god liberals grow up and pay for your own %$#@ once in a while.

      • fiona64

        Hey, dumbfuck? Guess what? WE DO PAY FOR OUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS. It isn’t free. And you didn’t answer the question: why should Hobby Lobby’s owners have the right to inflict their religious beliefs on their employees? Because yes, dumbass, that is exactly what they are doing.

        • kitler

          I’ve been holding my tongue..but damnit..I’ve been wanting to pepper every post with “dumbfuck” “fucktard” etc.

          • fiona64

            I feel as though some of these anti-choice morons (especially the anti-choice male morons) cause some form of written Tourette’s syndrome. I am not kidding.

          • kitler

            Dumbfuck prolifemama does not even know what sentience is.

      • fiona64

        Guess what? We DO pay for medications — with our work. Those benefits are provided in lieu of more salary. And, we pay premiums out of our paychecks to boot.

        Which of YOUR medical decisions do you want to be made by your employer?

        Oh, wait. This ruling is a-okay with you, because it is “narrowly tailored” to only cover medications used by women.

        You are a misogynistic POS.

        • Karie Ryan Ordway

          Nailed him.

  • fiona64

    Yes, sweetie. I corrected my post. And none of this changes the fact that you’re a dumbfuck.

  • fiona64

    Shorter Elcee: Blahblahblah.

  • fiona64

    No, I surmised you to be male because of your misogyny.

    I keep forgetting that there are idiot female misogynists, too … but you say you are male, below.

  • fiona64

    am quite involved in the field of female reproductive health

    You are a flat-out liar. If you were in the field, you would not make such asinine remarks.

    As for your tone-policing, you are cordially invited to fuck yourself.

  • fiona64

    No, you’re the racist bigot Islamophobe … which is my entire point.

    Casse-toi.

  • kitler

    More from Kevin Drum on the ruling/s1ut shaming
    http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/take-two-hobby-lobby-was-about-more-abortion-after-all

    Fruitbat Rita makes an appearance.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Once there’s no more contraception, women should stop having sex with men. No more procreation. Once this generation of women dies off, who are they going to punish?

    • fiona64

      Lysistrata, baby …

  • Suba gunawardana

    Much of the time, the “right to religious freedom” is synonymous with the “right to run roughshod over others”. That’s a “right” we can all do without.

  • Suba gunawardana

    So what? All the female justices DISSENTED. What’s your point?

  • Rainbow Walker

    Courts have often used religion not the law to come to a decision. This case is a perfect example and one that will inevitably be overturned in the future.

    Ginsburg put it succinctly: “In sum,” Ginsburg adds about the free exercise claims at the heart of this case,“‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s
    nose begins.’”

    Besides the obvious psychological harm this is a very good reason to abolish religion. It’s a disease of the mind.

    • expect_resistance

      So glad to see you back here! :)

      • Rainbow Walker

        Thank you. I try to hit these boards from time to time. But usually way too busy.

    • Timothy Griffy

      I wouldn’t go so far as to abolish religion (indeed, as a religious believer, I can’t). It would be enough that the law enshrines Ginsburg’s quoted maxim.

  • goatini

    And if one has a full-time job, let’s say, at Hobby Lobby, then she will pay full fare at Planned Parenthood, since sliding scale fees are determined by salary – FOR SOMETHING THAT SHE ALREADY PAYS FOR via her compensation. So you want to punish her by making her pay TWICE.

    And if one has a full-time job, let’s say, at Hobby Lobby, then she cannot apply for care at the county health department, “welfare” (as you put it), or “low cost clinics”. Because those services are for indigent and low income women.

    So if one has a full-time job, let’s say, at Hobby Lobby, and her physician determines that the best form of contraception for her is an IUD, then she will have to pay FULL PRICE for the visit and for the product – FOR SOMETHING THAT SHE ALREADY PAYS FOR via her compensation.

    Good Lord, these “religious” nuts are dumb, AND mean.

  • goatini

    I can see that this one was definitely a mean girl bully in grammar and high school. Those types usually don’t do very well in later life.

  • goatini

    Let us know when you get acquainted with the truth, because at this point you most emphatically are NOT.

  • goatini

    //field of female reproductive health as my vocation//

    Translation: “sidewalk counselor” aka stalker, bully and harasser of innocent patients.

    • fiona64

      I’ll bet you’re exactly right.

  • goatini

    //Be careful what you wish for when you start wishing for people’s freedom to be taken away. //

    I’d say that YOU are the one who needs to heed that warning.

  • goatini

    I see that bully nitwit girl is completely unacquainted with Constitutional law.

  • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

    Ms. Marcotte notes, “Rather, the company is the official plaintiff (along with the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation) in a case that is part of a larger legal attack from the Christian right on contraception access.” And later, “So instead, the strategy is to cast around, looking for certain soft spots, places where they can attack contraception access, making it harder for women to get while assuring everyone that they are not actually out to get rid of their contraception.”
    I have long believed that the anti-choice movers and shakers chose Hobby Lobby as a plaintiff precisely because their case was not an attempt to eliminate all contraception. Now, as the saying goes, the camel’s nose is in the tent, and the frontal assault on all contraception is on.
    The only bright spot I see here is that the decision specifically notes that Hobby Lobby did not have a 1st Amendment case and so had to fall back on RFRA. At least RFRA is just another piece of legislation passed by Congress which can therefore be amended or repealed by Congress. Perhaps when the Hobby Lobby decision generates enough mischief, as Justice Ginsburg assures us in her articlulate dissent it inevitably will, that will happen.

    • Shan

      Good points. But I’m not sure about the repeal of the RFRA. I’m not sure I’d WANT it to be. Maybe just amended somehow to prevent THIS kind of bullshit.

      • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

        I agree, Shan. I wasn’t advocating outright repeal. Alas, we atheists are capable of mischief too. The religious deserve some sort of protection, just, as you say, not something that allows decisions like this one.

        • Shan

          “Alas, we atheists are capable of mischief too.”

          LOL! Yes, but I don’t see anybody else being put legally at risk due to any atheist mischief. Seriously, I’d love to see someone point out where any of that is happening.

    • Everybodhi

      I wouldn’t count on our current congress to pass or repeal anything.
      Vote out the teabillies that have control of the house and maybe something can be done.

      • Timothy Griffy

        Considering many or most of the teabillies are there because of gerrymandered districts, I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon. We should probably actually start thinking of switching to a parliamentary form of representation. That way we wouldn’t have to worry about DINOs either.

  • RNfromNY

    This country is moving further and further into sharia-Christian law. It’s downright frightening. Thank god we have Canada nearby, otherwise I’d get my tubes tied TOMORROW!

  • RNfromNY

    Jews are very reasonable. They also allow abortion when the mother’s life is at stake, unlike the Catholics who let the mother die if the fetus still has a heartbeat. I got into a debate with a Catholic who actually defended this practice, saying real women would give their lives for their babies, blah, blah, blah. Misogyny, plain and simple.

    • Sonofa

      God forbid someone die to give their child a chance at life. Now that is a woman!!!

      • fiona64

        Quelle surprise, you’re anti-choice as well. It’s so easy to be an anti-choice male, isn’t it? You can crow about how great it is for a woman to die of pregnancy-related complications, knowing full well that you’ll never have to worry about doing the same thing.

      • P. McCoy

        You support suicide? How very ‘Catholic’ of you! Jim Jones’ cultists supported the same thing.

      • Ramanusia

        Um, a woman dying for a fetus doesn’t give anyone at all a chance at life. In your scenario “that” is a corpse with fetal tissue inside of it. Were you in favor of life, you would be disgusted, instead you’re just disgusting.

      • Unicorn Farm

        “God forbid someone die to give their child a chance at life. Now that is a woman!!!”

        There we go, that’s the conservative way! The only good woman is the type that’s willing to die for a fetus!

        And you dumb fucks wonder why we call you sexist?

      • Suba gunawardana

        And what happens to the children forced into life without a mother to look out for them? Apparently they fall prey to “pro-lifers” such as you.
        Isn’t it rather curious why you have such an interest in creating more children?

      • EdinburghEye

        Nothing prevents a woman from *choosing* to die if she feels it better that she die in order to continue her pregnancy.

        What you want is for a woman to be made to die, regardless of her own feelings on the matter, and regardless of whether this means her baby is born alive or the fetus dies inside the woman’s corpse.

        What you are proposing is called human sacrifice.

      • RNfromNY

        Yeah, but some of us want to live. I shouldn’t be put to death at a catholic hospital because of YOUR religious beliefs.

  • RNfromNY

    Reality was taken away from me and my family. A precedent was set that religion can make up their own reality: science doesn’t support their belief that emergency contraception causes abortions. I’m very troubled by the rejection of science.

  • RNfromNY

    IUD’s work very well for some women, and emergency contraception is needed for women who weren’t prepared for a sexual encounter. Why should they be taken away? “Because Jebus” isn’t a good enough reason for me, but it is for the religious loons on the supreme court.

  • RNfromNY

    Stupid comparison. Women want ALL forms of birth control covered by their insurance plans. There’s no scientific reason why this should be denied.

    • Ramanusia

      There are also plenty of scientific and economic reasons why they should be covered as well.

  • Sonofa

    Drama Drama Drama, no one is coming for your birth control! Man it feels good to say that, its what the libs always tell me about gun control. But yet, my 2A freedoms errode every year and the laws say I cant own, not simply that I have to buy my own. No one here said you cant own birth control, you just need to buy your own. Grow up drama queens!

    • Rainbow Walker

      It seems you are the only one here tending to the dramatic. And yes religious nuts are aiming at birth control. They even support pharmacists to have the right not to sell them.

      As for your so call 2nd Amendment rights, they aren’t eroding, you gun nuts are expanding them. In GA they just passed a law where people can carry in bars, churches, hospitals, schools and courtrooms. Real smart. Trying to go back to the old west where they can shoot on sight. I wonder if after all the drunks shoot themselves, judges get shot, and teachers take aim at students they will rethink this. Probably not. They don’t have two cells to rub together.

      BTW the 2nd doesn’t give you the right to “bear arms”. It reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Our militia is the National Guard. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v.Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.

      Even if you want to argue that you have the right for arms, it says “regulated militia”. That gives us the right to be safe from you.

      • fiona64

        A well regulated Militia,

        Yep, and is specifically related to the Militia Act, which was intended to quell slave rebellions.

        I guarantee that Bubba up there has no idea what the 2nd Amendment really means.

      • Sonofa

        There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar of the actual text of the Second Amendment. The first phrase is under proper grammar, and as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, a prefatory phrase. It is not a statement of the sole purpose of the right to bear arms, but is an understanding of the way in which the right would be used in the defense of the state.

        Furthermore, the Second Amendment clearly identifies right as belonging to ‘the people.’ This identification clearly shows to whom the right belongs.

        Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

        If “the people” does not apply to all the individual citizens in the Second Amendment, then how can it do so for those other amendments? The meaning of the statement is clear, despite the obfuscation of progressive activism.

        • Rainbow Walker

          You need to learn to read and not cut and paste. You copied it almost verbatim from your tea bagger friends. [http://www.surpriseteapartypatriots.com/2nd-amendment/].
          And they are wrong.

          People can be give rights by proxy. Meaning a separate entity can ensure them: the government, a constituent, a court, a representative. And while many of the laws say “people” they are
          given those rights by proxy. We have the right to peaceable assembly, but the government can control how that assembly occurs for public protection. A woman has the right to abort, but not self-abort.

          From United States v. Cruikshank decision: “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution.”

          McDonald v. Chicago: Justice Stevens wrote [Citing Cruikshank]” “The so-called incorporation question was squarely and, in my view, correctly resolved in the late 19th century.”

          Justice Breyer wrote, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’”

          Hence the National Guard satisfies the peoples ‘right to bear arms’. Furthermore, your cut and paste idiocy doesn’t address the first part: A well regulated militia. Even if you are given rights
          to have a gun pardner, how does that give you the right to be unregulated?

          Next time try articulating for yourself and don’t let your dumbass teabagger friends speak for you.

          • Shan

            Sonofa is just derailing the conversation.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Indeed. But it’s more like suffering idiots :)

        • Shan

          None of this is about the 2nd Amendment. Go away.

    • Shan

      “No one here said you cant own birth control, you just need to buy your own.”

      No, the laws just say that you have to pay for it twice or the taxpayers have to foot the bill instead of the employers. Because I can guarantee you that none of the insurance policies companies like Hobby Lobby are going to get that exclude birth control will cost less either for the business owners or for their employees.

    • fiona64

      Sweetie, I am probably your worst nightmare: a liberal, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, Democrat female gun owner with dead-eye aim … and who believes in sensible gun control.

      You and your camo-clad, tin-can plinking gang of Bubbas are not a well-regulated militia, as the 2nd Amendment dictates.

      Now, why don’t you go color while the adults talk?

      • Shan

        Fiona, you are so bad.

        • fiona64

          I do what I can.

          • Shan

            How can we contact each other outside this forum without broadcasting our personal information?

          • kitler

            20 abortions and you will unlock the secret!

          • Ella Warnock

            Do I get extra abortion points with a mani/pedi and hot stone massage?

          • kitler

            Death juice.

          • Shan

            “Death juice.”

            FFS, OMG, I can’t even…

          • kitler

            Courtesy of Christine dumbfuck Smith.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What exactly is death juice?

          • kitler

            A method of abortion according to Christine

          • Jennifer Starr

            Christine’s pilot light isn’t lit ;)

          • Shan

            LOL! I already had that many last month. I guess my local PP-abortuaryplex forgot to accidentally leave my medical and/or personal information somewhere where undercover Operation Rescue (“I’m Troy Newman, bitch!”) operatives could illegally scavenge it and publish all my details online.

          • kitler

            Myintx recently stated that PP is a baby extermination center.

            But clearly, YOU ARE.

            :P

          • Rainbow Walker

            If I may, make a care2 account. There you can send personal messages. That how Suba and I communicate.

          • Shan

            I have one already.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have a twitter account connected to my disqus account.

          • Shan

            Hrm. I don’t use Twitter. I don’t like the idea of anybody having 24/7 access to expecting me to respond to their every online twitch.

        • kitler

          I loves it

        • Ella Warnock

          No, she’s awesome!

    • Jennifer Starr

      What do you want to own that you’re not allowed to own?

  • Rainbow Walker

    As others have noted, Hobby lobby lost on the 1st amendment argument and had to resort to the RFRA. Unfortunately for Hobby Lobby the RFRA is already being challenge, at least the accomodations. [http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Gedicks-FINAL-website-edits-3-25-2014.pdf]”RFRA Exemptions from the Contraception Mandate An Unconstitutional Accommodation of Religion… Neither courts nor commentators seem aware that a line of permissive accommodation cases prohibits shifting the material costs of accommodating anticontraception beliefs from the employers who hold them to employees who do not.”

    The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion
    over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The SCOTUS majority [as Ginsburg points out in her dissent] is a violated this clause. Once the RFRA is challenged these accommodations will fall and this decision will just be a bad memory. And possibly the act will not stand the test of time. Hopefully.

    • Shan

      “This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.”

      And didn’t they do just that by specifically saying that religious objections to such things as blood transfusions were specifically excluded?

      • Rainbow Walker

        Indeed they did. Confusing no?

        Actually it points to the [gang of] five who let religion, not the law, guide them. Notice none of the five who assented to the decision [to specifically exclude transfusions] have any religious beliefs with regard to blood transfusions. So as long as it’s not in their religious tenets it’s up for grabs. But if it challenges their ideas they won’t go for that. Another perfect example of religion at the helm.

        • Shan

          I don’t even know. It’s such a clusterf*ck of idiocy right now. I think it’s going to take a lot of challenges before it gets sorted out. Ugh.

          • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

            Well said, Shan.

  • Sonofa

    I would not work for them. Simple.

    • fiona64

      More betrayal of your privilege. Way to go, Sunny Jim!

  • Sonofa

    Ha! Elcee, very funny. Good to see someone who can actually think and take responsibility for themselves.

  • fiona64

    Learn the difference between a medical condition and a disease. Then we can talk.

  • fiona64

    Hey, dummy? Condoms and other OTC items are not covered under the ACA. Neither are vasectomies or tubal ligations.

    But the Supreme Court has now said that all hormonal contraception is included in their ruling, not just the four types that Hobby Lobby’s owners (erroneously) “believe” cause abortions.

  • fiona64

    CONDOMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ACA. THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN *ANY* MEDICAL INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE OTC PRODUCTS. Gawd, maybe if I shout, something will get through your moronic brain.

  • Karie Ryan Ordway

    Well Hal, I am not the one with the reading comprehension problem. Amid all the reaction to the ruling, one very important issue was left out. The following day, Tuesday, the Court had to issue a clarifying statement explaining that their ruling extented to all contraceptives and all closely held companies. Specifically, HL listed it’s oposition to 4 contraceptives that they wrongly believe to cause abortions. In the future, they and other closely held companies with religious beliefs may include all hormonal birth control as abortifacients. Later still, they may decide the prevention of pregnancy is at odds with their beliefs and stop covering all contraceptives including condoms. The other 50 or so companies that also had an interest in this case, will be taking apart their employees contraception coverage in celebration of their religious liberty.
    And so many people are okay with that because they don’t believe that contraception is part of women’s health care. Just like HL has wrongly decided that the morning after pill and IUD’s cause abortions, others have wrongly decided what constitutes health care for women. You and they would howl with rage if the tables were turned and someone else decided what was important to your health care and what was not. No one bats an eye when the health of a woman is at stake.

  • margaretdblough

    hal-You clearly weren’t paying attention. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties weren’t the only cases decided. The Supreme Court vacated three appeals court rulings and returned for reconsideration under Hobby Lobby where the employer(s) had lost below and denied the government’s review without explanation in another three cases in which the employer(s)’ had prevailed. All 6 involved owners who are Catholic and objected to all forms of coverage of women’s prevention services under ACA. Hobby Lobby could go around patting itself on the back for not trying to reject all contraceptive coverage under ACA for its employees all it wants. It didn’t have to. It knew these other cases were pending.

  • Ramanusia

    Insulin isn’t made from pigs anymore.

    • Chaosfeminist

      Depends on the brand

  • Ramanusia

    Why are you projecting your misogyny on someone who is rather clearly more caring of women and their lives and health than you seem to be?

  • Ella Warnock

    Can you cite where someone has attempted to classify it as a disease?

  • nightshade

    The truly frightening part of this decision isn’t about contraceptives or abortion – it is that SCOTUS, as with the Citizens United decision, is turning our country over to corporations, giving a legal fiction, true only on paper, the status of a living, breathing person. Back in the late nineteenth century, there was a phenomenon known as the robber barons. They had near total control of their employees’ lives, to the point that if you worked for the “company store”, they owned you as surely as a slave. I fear those days may be returning, or worse, we will be serfs, slaving our lives to the corporate kings, in the name of their vengeful god and their profits.

    • fiona64

      Some idiot the other day referred, not at all ironically, to that era as the one to which we should all have to return. You know, when there were still Jim Crow laws, women couldn’t vote, didn’t have to be paid *at all* for their work (let alone equally), and the company store owned your soul.

      You guessed it — the idiot in question was a straight white male.

  • Unicorn Farm

    This may be one of the most ignorant things I’ve read about this issue.

    First, the requirement to cover contraceptives without a co-pay is not “illegally added”. It was added via notice and comment rulemaking process, which is legal and binding, per the Administrative Procedure Act. HHS had every right to do it.

    Second, condoms are over the counter (which even you seem to understand!?!), so of course they are NOT covered by a health insurance policy! How could you even be stupid enough to say that they are? You do not need to go to your doctor to acquire condoms. You DO need to go to a doctor to acquire hormonal contraceptives or IUDs.

    It terrifies me that there are people as ignorant as you out there, voting.

  • fiona64

    Am I the only one who’s noticed that the majority of people crowing about what a great decision this is are *men* — who are 100 percent not affected by the decision?

    • Shan

      I wondered about that too. But from the point of…okay, so, what about the men who have partners and dependents on their health insurance? Are these guys totally okay with someone else telling them what kind of contraception they and their partners should use? Why don’t we hear anything from THOSE guys?

      • Timothy Griffy

        I’m no longer married and don’t have a s.o., otherwise, that is exactly what you would be hearing from me.

        • Shan

          So you’d think it’s perfectly okay to pay the same insurance premium for less coverage and then have to plunk down an extra grand or more out of pocket just because your boss thinks BC is icky?

          Huh.

          • Timothy Griffy

            Actually, just the exact opposite. I don’t think it is okay (and that should have already been discerned from my other posts). What I’m saying is that I don’t have partners or dependents on my health insurance and therefore cannot speak as one who does. You’ll hear plenty from me about this decision, but I just can’t do it from the particular point of view you’ve requested.

    • Everybodhi

      Women spend billions more on health care than men because of the reproductive medical needs, even though they wouldn’t need much of that expense if they didn’t have sex with men.
      Men ask, “why should I have to pay for women’s birth control?”.
      Because you have recreational sex with women, dudes, and should share in the responsibility of the costs.

  • nettwench14

    As well as the company still getting the full tax break for offering employee insurance that no longer fits the standard, and that if women opt out of the employer’s insurance to buy their own on the market, they are not allowed the subsidies all others get for buying their own insurance. And it will cost them more than their employer-provided insurance. No one cared about banning contraception before the mandate, it was already offered in the plans of many of these companies, but they just got their panties in a twist when the government mandated it, to the point where their religious belief that hadn’t been an issue suddenly became very important. Talk about burden? These people have no burden. They have never payed for contraceptives out of their pockets, the insurance company pays for it. But a huge burden has just been placed on every woman in this country, for no good reason. It doesn’t just affect liberals and Democrats, you know.

    You watch when we boycott all of these companies and put them out of business, and when they can’t find anyone to work for them because ALL WOMEN need reproductive care, it has no bearing on whether they are having sex or not. Having a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina are not something women have a choice about, we are born this way. Making a whole class of medication unavailable will lead to serious problems for those who need them for medical treatment. Why should those people bear this burden?

    I would love to inflict people like you and those judges with the 25 years of hell I suffered with endometriosis. Excruciating pain every month for 25 years, and then four surgeries and intractable pelvic pain and disability. That is certainly not about sex, it pretty much destroyed my sex life. But now women can’t get treated for problems like this because suddenly all these owner’s personal religious beliefs take precedence over their own health?

    Why would you think we would not be angry about this? What if you had prostate cancer, but treating it was not covered by your insurance? Because of your employer’s precious “beliefs ” that he is perfectly able to practice without burdening his employees? This is exactly the position the SC has placed on women, and going untreated for a disease is an incredibly great burden. A much greater burden than this baloney about religious beliefs.

    • fiona64

      I think you replied to me instead of Mr. Bigmouth Sonofa … but I’m right there with you. I wish he could have just two hours of the hyperemesis gravidarum that I experienced for 40 weeks.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Hopefully people can still have a say with their dollars and personal choices. Boycott all religious companies who put their belief over people’s safety. Stop buying from them and working for them (including buying their stock). Before long their only patrons & employees would be misogynistic men, and women willing to be broodmares.

    • Everybodhi

      The religious companies I know of offer horrible products; chickfila, Hobby Lobby..the only one that comes close to something I would buy is the health food company, Eden Foods, and even their products are crap compared to their competitors.

    • Timothy Griffy

      That is easy enough to do in some cases, but not others. Hobby Lobby and Eden Foods serve a niche market, and Chick Fil A has plenty of competition making them easy to avoid. But if something is essential things become very difficult. It’s much harder to boycott Catholic hospitals when they have a monopoly in the market or for a low wage earner/SNAP recipient to avoid the lowest prices regardless of what the company does.

  • nettwench14

    What about the employees religious freedom? Not as important as the boss’ right? What kind of religion is run like a business? It’s profane to do this to religion it actually trivializes and demeans sincere religious belief.

  • Jennifer Starr

    I never said that it was.

  • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

    A few days ago, I said in this thread that the Hobby Lobby decision was reason to amend RFRA but not repeal it entirely. Now that I have read the below-linked article in this morning’s Washington Post, I withdraw that opinion. If RFRA is being used to excuse this sort of blatant misogyny, then the only reasonable course of action is outright repeal. These people are never going to stop until they turn this country into a Christian theocracy, “Christian” being defined as their brand of social conservatism, of course.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2014/07/03/622f7b12-02f8-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html?hpid=z3

    • Shan

      I don’t think it’s the RFRA that should go. As I understand it, that was always intended to protect individuals. The real problem is the exemption for institutions. WAY too broad, and being whined about because they have to sign a freaking piece of paper.

      Mind you, after having had my mind blown by a Catholic poster on this site who argued/explained in detail why it’s preferable, per doctrine, to remove a woman’s fallopian tube and let the “child” die “naturally” – and thereby compromise the woman’s future fertility – instead of administering methotrexate to resolve an ectopic pregnancy, I understand it a BIT better. Because doing so would “directly target the unborn child” which is unacceptable even though in both cases there is no viable pregnancy and in one – the Catholic way – the woman has to undergo unnecessary surgery and have a functioning body part damaged.

      They’re like Libertarians, but worse, because they don’t have bongs.

      https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3235/5794802369_249b829e78.jpg

      • fiona64

        They’re like Libertarians, but worse, because they don’t have bongs.

        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Yep.

      • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

        If I thought there were any way to keep the exemption for individuals and ditch it for institutions, I would agree with you. I am about as sure as I can be of anything, however, that any attempt to do that would end in another SCOTUS case in which institutions would complain they are being deprived of their Constitutionally guaranteed “personhood” and have their exemption reinstated. They would certainly have SCOTUS precedent on their side.
        Your argument makes perfect logical sense, but politics is the art of the possible, and getting the anti-contraception crowd to be satisfied with compromise of any sort is just not possible. I repeat, albeit reluctantly, that the only way to prevent the sort of abuse of RFRA we have seen in the past week is to get rid of it.

      • Ella Warnock

        It’s double-talking bullshit. If they’re taking the tube that the fetus is unfortunately inhabiting, then they **are in all actuality** targeting it. They love nothing more than pissing on your head and trying to convince you it’s just rain.

  • Everybodhi

    Pregnancy counselors have no training outside of what they learn in church.
    They have absolutely no medical training, no training in psychology or sociology.
    On top of that, states use taxpayer money to fund them, require women to see them in order to get abortion services, and pay them more than trained psychologists receive.
    At least that’s how they do it in Texas.
    I like what you did, I’m going to follow your lead and start calling and messing with pregnancy center idiots.

    • Suba gunawardana

      Please remember to record the conversations. :) They would be very useful evidence against these criminal activities.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Bravo!!!!

    Considering offering false medical advice is blatantly illegal, these places really should be sued & shut down.

    • Timothy Griffy

      They will probably claim free speech . . . and win.

  • Rainbow Walker

    These cpc’s should be shut down. If any other so called “center” gave false medical information the state would shut them down so fast their head would spin. Shows you how dangerous religion is. I have known churches to tell individuals of the so called psychological pathologies of homosexuality. I simply sent a message to TX DSHS board that these people were practicing without a license and spreading harmful nonsense. They sent a cease and desist letter [to the churches] after some prodding. And to my knowledge they did stop.

    We need to bring attention to this problem and try to shut them down [cpc’s].

  • xuinkrbin

    On that whole “Hobby Lobby is wrong about the science” thing, that’s overstating things a bit — a lot of the disagreement hinges around when a pregnancy begins (when an egg is fertilized, or when it implants in the uterus). If You think Life begins at fertilization, You will be more worried about certain forms of birth control (IUDs, especially) than People who believe Life begins later.

    Another version of this argument says because IUDs mostly seem to prevent ovulation or kill sperm, Hobby Lobby has nothing to worry about. But if You think destroying a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to murder, arguing this only occasionally happens may not be very satisfying. A lot of the fact sheets circulating seem to Me to be somewhat overstating their case in the somewhat understandable urge to deny ammunition to the other side. “We don’t know whether emergency contraception prevents implantation” turns, after several iterations, into “emergency contraception does not prevent implantation,” and, similarly, “IUDs prevent conception” turns into “IUDs do not destroy fertilized eggs,” even though that point is at best hotly contested. IUDs can be used as emergency contraception quite a bit after an accident or a rape, which seems to point to something beyond a sperm-killing or ovulation-preventing effect.

    You can argue there’s a gray area, and Hobby Lobby might be wrong on this point. On the other hand, You can also see why, if there’s a gray area about whether You’re killing a Baby, You might want to err on the side of not killing a Baby.

    From the point of view of the law, however, this is an interesting but irrelevant sideshow: What matters is Their belief. We don’t require nor allow courts to stage an elaborate inquiry into whether American Indian beliefs about what happens when They ingest peyote are accurate; We say as long as They sincerely believe this is part of Their religious practice, They are entitled to deference from the law.

  • xuinkrbin

    Also, to quote another comment I read earlier today “I adore these ‘writing on the wall’ arguments I see People put forth because, so long as they’re sufficient vague, they can never be wrong. Exactly when will this ‘disaster’ play out? How? What is the sequence of events? Give some specifics or You’re case is no better than the metaphorical ‘tin foil hat brigade’.”

  • BelligerentBruncher

    Time to make hormonal birth control OTC and be done with all this bullshit bickering about insurance paying for it.

    • Timothy Griffy

      Agreed in principle, but in fact there are reasons why hormonal birth control remains Rx only. There are many reasons why hormonal BC is contraindicated, which is why women have to be tested before they receive a script and periodically monitored while they are using it.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        OK, a couple if factual errors in your comment.

        The only thing that is required for a prescription BC (we’re talking about the pill here) is a BP check. No blood work. No pelvic exam. No EKG. Yeah, many OBGYNs and FP docs are currently going to do those things, but they aren’t required. And just because drugs are OTC does not preclude a patient from being monitored by a physician while taking it – or reading the black box warnings (like the smoking warning on OCPs). Aspirin has been done this way for decades.

        Your concerns have already been addressed by ACOG.

        http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Gynecologic_Practice/Over-the-Counter_Access_to_Oral_Contraceptives

        The push against making birth control pills OTC is political – and because women’s rights groups know that insurance will drop it like a ton of bricks if it goes OTC.

        • Timothy Griffy

          My information was outdated. Thanks for the info.

  • Deesse de la lune

    You’re a man who has a uterus? Are you intersex?

  • Deesse de la lune

    I’m confused, you say you’re a man, but a few posts ago you say you still have your uterus. Are you intersex? Or just a liar?

  • James

    The Hobby Lobby decision does not affect just women.

    It affects the spouses and children of those who are part of a family health care policy as well.

    Thus, Hobby Lobby’s asserted “corporate religious” rights are not just being asserted against people who work for Hobby Lobby, they are also being asserted against people who do not work for them at all. That is even more egregious.

    And make no mistake: now that corporations have been found to have religious rights, other corporations will assert that this “narrowly-crafted” decision should be applied to them as well, with a XIV Amendment equal treatment argument.

    It would be bad enough that a company can tell me what my religious belief should be. But to tell my wife our daughters what theirs should be when they don’t even work for them?

    And the canard of “go work for someone else then” does not float either. Do I now have to ask what my potential employer’s beliefs are when I make a job application? What if my employer has an epiphany and “changes religions?”

    There are plenty of religious business owners that also have other “sincerely-held beliefs” such as gays and atheists are evil. Do they get equal treatment under the law as any other business, because it is only a matter of time before those arguments are made as well.

    And at that point we will have business deciding what your religious beliefs can be. And your children and spouse’s religions.

  • Everybodhi

    ” ..if it had not it would not be an issue where an Employer is forced to provide benefits beyond those already provided.”
    Hobby Lobby provided all the benefits they now object to, for years, up until the ACA passed and they filed suit.
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/

  • Timothy Griffy

    Correction: The Rabbis allow medications even if it they are derived from pigs or other clean animals. However, according to the law, the official positions of a given religious body are irrelevant; it is the individual that matters. If an individual Jew has a sincere religious belief that medications derived from unclean animals are forbidden, he would conceivably win a claim under the Hobby Lobby precedent.

  • KristenfromMA

    You lie.

  • Timothy Griffy

    No, it is a ruling against the right to religious freedom. The Court has effectively ruled that employers’ religious beliefs overrules their employees’ rights. Used to be your rights ended where mine began. Not anymore.

  • Timothy Griffy

    “Thinking individuals who are not involved in man-hating radical
    activism will see the Court’s decision for what it is. You are just a
    peon mouthpiece for a losing cause.”

    We already do. The Court decision allows employers freedom of religion to take away the rights of their employees.

  • Timothy Griffy

    “Calm yourself dear. So you are now telling me that there are employers
    who offer benefits packages that are not subsidizing at least in part,
    said benefit packages? hmmmm……”

    No. They are not. They are compensating you for your labor.

    “I guess we would have to look into the term, “closely held” which doesn’t offer as much of a shield as you allege.”

    It covers about 90% of all corporations and about 52% of the private workforce. It’s not a shield; it’s a sword.

    “Religious freedom includes the right to conduct all aspects of your life in accordance with your religious beliefs as long as you are not
    causing harm to others or forcing them to change their beliefs to
    accommodate yours…..sorry.”

    Finally … you are starting to get it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Court is allowing any employer to do.

  • Timothy Griffy

    The Muslim example is to illustrate a point. Had the same decision favored a Muslim employer, the same people now celebrating the decision would be crying about how Sharia is becoming the law of the land. And thanks to the Hobby Lobby decision, there is nothing stopping an extreme Muslim from denying health coverage to women altogether.

  • Timothy Griffy

    “The owners are saying they do not want to subsidize these activities
    because their religious beliefs to not allow them to in good conscience.
    This makes the argument about religious freedom for the owners of Hobby
    Lobby, not contraceptive access for you.”

    No, this makes it an argument that Hobby Lobby’s (or any other employer’s) religious beliefs can be used to overrule your rights.

  • Timothy Griffy

    If the court had upheld religious freedom, they would have ruled against Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby’s rights end where mine begin. In other words, it would have ruled for religious freedom for everyone, not just those rich enough to get special exemptions from the rules everyone else has to play by.

  • Timothy Griffy

    Actually, forcing their beliefs on others is EXACTLY what Hobby Lobby is doing. This decision infringes on my right to be treated equally without distinction to sex, religion, or political opinion. This decision infringes on my right to life, liberty, and security of person. This decision infringes on my right to recognition as a person before the law. This decision infringes on my right to equal protection under the law without discrimination. This decision infringes on my right to privacy. This decision infringes on my right to decide when and if I have children. This decision infringes on my right to thought, conscience, and religion. This decision infringes on my right to see, receive, and impart information through any media. This decision infringes on my right to favorable and just remuneration for my labor. This decision infringes on my right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of myself and my family. This decision infringes on my right to education. And finally, this decision infringes on my right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom ends where my rights begin. But not according to the Supreme Court.

  • Timothy Griffy

    You’ve got it at least partly right here. If Obama and the then-Democratic Congress had passed a single-payer health care system, there would be fewer headaches. Instead, the stupid fools decided that health care reform should be “bipartisan” and made use of a system conservatives proposed and supported (until Obama endorsed it, that is). And then they fucked that up by dropping the public option–again in the name of “bipartisanship.”

  • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

    Natural Rights are taken from the greater number everyday by the Party forcing citizens into indentured servitude to capitalists. In this case Xtian capitalists. In light of the money changer fable I find that ironic.

  • Karie Ryan Ordway

    So your position being that the employer may, in effect, say to an employee, you will get what I want you to have, when I want you to have it. I may grant or rescind any part of our employment contract as it suits me, because I am the boss and my position/contribution out ranks yours.
    This is what the ACA is designed to stop; capricious bosses who suddenly develop a cramp in their religious liberty if they must treat employees equally. This idea that the boss’ rights (religious or otherwise) out rank an employee’s rights in the eyes of the court is a disaster.
    An employer is an employer, not a benefactor. The benefits package s/he offers is not largesse, it is in lieu of wages. Benefits are earned, non-wage compensation. To disallow an agreed upon employment benefit, means businesses like HL now owe their employees more in wage compensation since they have taken away a portion of their earnings. To take away a portion of earned benefits is the same as taking away part of one’s wage. While the employer subsidizes the cost of insurance, workers share the expense through payments (premiums), co-pays, and deductibles.

    HL et al, have found a way to profit from the ACA’s generous tax deductions for providing insurance, while simultaneously forcing their employees to either adjust to and accept the loss of benefits or go onto the ACA where they may not qualify for subsidies themselves and incur greater losses out of pocket. Under the guise of religious liberty of course. One would be a fool to think that others have not noticed that HL’s failure to divest itself from the pharmaceutic companies which make the dreaded abotifacients and taking advantage of considerable tax breaks while doing so, will be the way business is conducted in the new Corporate Theocracy.

  • Karie Ryan Ordway

    For Hal in moderation, Even though everything you said after, ‘no, its the women who got everything wrong’, went down hill and dissolved into a hate filled screed against women, I’ll just point out a few facts you missed.
    The first is that employers have enjoyed tax exemptions for providing health insurance to their employees since 1943 and costs the federal government almost $3 billion a year.
    The second, the ACA didn’t just extend insurance to the uninsured, it improved the quality of insurance offered. The health insurance industry is no longer able to offer sub par policies, but must meet a minimum level of coverage. To that end, it guaranteed that maternity care was offered to all women where it had only been included in 12% of all policies offered. It also provided coverage for gender related issues that disqualified women for having pre-existing conditions such as C-sections. It also outlawed gender rating that made women pay more for insurance than men for the same coverage based only on their biology. So you see Hal, before the ACA, women (and their husbands) paid more than anyone else. And they did so for decades.
    As for everything else you had to say, its all your opinion and you’re entitled to your own opinions, just not you’re own facts.

  • http://www.myspace.com/btdsloveshack blazintommyd

    As for your 2d paragraph “The Party” is the USA Democratic-republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson. It’s the only party that is allowed to exist in the USA by the MSM and under present law cf. http://tl.gd/n_1s1mjnt which Liberals finally concede is unconstitutional and now want to mutilate the US Const to preserve and protect. They are the middle class. But there is no separate party other than The Party; and yes the Liberal “economy” is entirely based on bribery, inflation and indentured servitude, no doubt about that at all. You didn’t actually think the slave mongers would ever abandon slavery did you?

    As for what Natural Rights “are taken from the greater number everyday” – well in re Detroit they’ve just turned off the water for thousands of citizens. People have about two days of life without water. I can’t imagine anything more barbaric than that. The rest is “self evident” but I’ll most likely blog about it eventually. Follow me here http://blazintommyd.tumblr.com/

    As for insurance, this is a business which the US Supreme Court after many decades finally conceded is “commerce” and may therefore be regulated by Congress who have wisely decided as a matter of General Welfare that there are too many people. This is likewise, entirely within their purview. So these are things which Congress has employers provide or facilitate as a form of compensation for wage slaves – viz., people who have no production property and therefore have to rely solely on their own labor to garner adequate funds to purchase their basic subsistence all of which is also attributable to the Liberal economy. An example is workman’s compensation which replaced the common law principle of fellow servant; but in this singular regard 5 men have decided to legislate an exception from the bench creating a privilege to corporate capitalists that don’t like the idea that another fellow servant from the profit class – i.e., insurance companies – allow women to be reimbursed for birth control. So your analogy itself is incorrect.

  • Timothy Griffy

    I’m sorry. I think we were talking past each other here. You seem to have read my statement “according to the law” as “according to Jewish law.” My intended meaning was according to the law as interpreted in the Hobby Lobby decision.