Amid the anguish over the Hobby Lobby ruling Monday was a note of optimism among some liberals, suggesting that the ruling was constructed with a narrowness that specifically prohibits use of its legal reasoning to protect religiously inspired discrimination against LGBT people. If only that was in fact the case.
Religious conservatives challenged the California law, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.
Thanks to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, corporations now have a whole new basis for objecting to government regulations.
Monday’s ruling is a cause for grave concern—for women, for LGBT people, and for other groups whose right to equal dignity and treatment in the workplace has been placed on shaky new ground.
This week, new studies accuse the public health community of ignoring the unique needs of bisexual men, find that casual sex is good for some people’s self-esteem, and show that women who get pregnant naturally at older ages may live longer.
In striking a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically reframed the debate over balancing the rights of patients and providers with the rights of abortion protesters.
The question that must be asked, in plain language, is: Do imperfect people deserve death for their imperfection?
On Monday, the Roberts Court denied a request by attorneys for the state to let a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital go into effect.
The high court hasn’t yet ruled on buffer zones or Hobby Lobby, but it did say a legal challenge to an Ohio elections law can proceed.
The Supreme Court has announced it will take up a case involving Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man convicted in 2010 under federal law for posting a series of threatening messages on his Facebook page.