US Supreme Court allows some employers to drop contraception coverage from healthcare


B00Mer
#1
US Supreme Court allows some employers to drop contraception coverage from healthcare plans



The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government cannot require “closely held” corporations to provide contraception coverage to its employees under the Affordable Care Act.

In a divided 5-4 ruling that carves out a piece of President Obama’s healthcare law, the court reasoned that under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), for-profit companies that are primarily controlled by a single family or a few individuals do not have to provide birth control coverage.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, a closely held corporation is one “that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and is not a personal service corporation.”

Written by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority opinion found that with the contraception mandate, the government was unable to prove the mandate was “the least restrictive means of furthering” its interest in providing women cost-free access and availability to birth control, something that is required under the RFRA.

As noted by SCOTUSblog, the high court decided this case simply on statutory grounds, and did not reach for the First Amendment claims invoked by Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby was one of the 49 for-profit corporations that sued the Obama administration over its decision to mandate employers cover birth control under the preventative care services outlined by the ACA. Under the ruling, women working for companies that deny contraception coverage will have to find it elsewhere.

"Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law," Alito wrote, according to the Huffington Post, adding that in making companies cover contraception, "the [Health and Human Services] mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs."

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” he added.

Although the Supreme Court ruled against the administration in this instance, it also said the government itself could pay for contraception coverage in order to ensure women have access to it. This pushed SCOTUSblog to suggest, “it is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage.”

The court emphasized that its decision was written narrowly to apply only to the contraception mandate and only to closely held corporations. Therefore, it does not mean that companies who object to services like blood transfusions and vaccinations on religious grounds will be able to avoid providing such coverage to its employees.



Additionally, the court ruled that its decision would not leave room for companies to justify discriminatory practices under the guise of religious belief.

In a dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor – Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined in part but also filed their own dissent – Ginsburg called the majority opinion “a decision of startling breadth.” She stated the ruling means, “commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, Ginsburg argued that the RFRA was never meant to apply to for-profit corporations, and reasoned that the decision paved the way for future cases in which companies deny other types of coverage. She also criticized the majority’s suggestion of allowing the government to pay for birth control, asking, "Where is the stopping point to the 'let the government pay' solution?"

Justice Anthony Kennedy, meanwhile, also offered his thoughts on Ginsburg’s criticism in a concurring opinion to Alito’s. As reported by the Huffington Post, he noted the Obama administration had already offered some institutions – churches, religiously affiliated hospitals and non-profits – an exemption from the birth control mandate. Since that was the case, he argued that exempting another class of organizations would be feasible, and that the ruling “does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent."

source: http://rt.com/usa/169436-supreme-cou...ampaign=chrome

///////////////////////////////

A huge defeat for ObamaCare... lol
 
talloola
+1
#2
does our government health care cover contraceptive costs?

when i was in that age group, i had to pay for all of my birth control purchases,
didn't give it a second thought, don't really consider it medical care,
but in the long run, covering birth control supplies would save the medical
community costs from unwanted pregnancies, which then cost big dollars.


as long as the government doesn't 'prevent' anyone from purchasing contraceptives,
thats fair, a free choice for all. if some groups
don't want to supply same, fine, they can be purchased somewhere else, just
like the doctor who doesn't want to supply birth control, who cares, there is
the majority of doctors who will.

i couldn't care less what any religious groups want, i'm only concerned with the freedom
of choice for the purchase of the product, or not.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#3  Top Rated Post
The libs get all excited about the pill, rubbers, and such.

Oh and it seems they think the government should pay for it.
 
Tecumsehsbones
-1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

The libs get all excited about the pill, rubbers, and such.

Oh and it seems they think the government should pay for it.

Umm. . . this case was about employers paying for it. Just sayin'.

I don't think the Supremes broke the right way on this, but the good news is, now that employers can dodge paying for contraception, it's the excuse the Dumbocrats needed to make the government pay for it.

So, you win. How's victory taste, General Pyrrhus?

Look it up.
 
captain morgan
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Umm. . . this case was about employers paying for it. Just sayin'.

It's a major blow to the leftard movement in the US.. It says that it's not the employers duty to make sure people are responsible for themselves.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

I don't think the Supremes broke the right way on this, but the good news is, now that employers can dodge paying for contraception, it's the excuse the Dumbocrats needed to make the government pay for it.

Sadly, that is a burden that the US taxpayer gets to shoulder.

Maybe the gubmint can issue rubber stamps along with the food stamp program.

'Rubber stamp' - get it?...
 
Corduroy
+1 / -1
#6
Opponents of socialized medicine fabricate this idea that it's the government coming between a patient and a doctor, telling the patient what medicine and procedures they should have. The alternative is money coming between you and your doctor or, as in this case, your employer.

Apparently the state getting involved in health care is a horrible tyranny, but when your boss tells you want you can't put in your body, that's freedom.
 
captain morgan
#7
Maybe the State can organize a stand-in for those people that are too tired to knock boots.... That or those special occasions where there is a bit too much kink in the plans for your someone's taste.

After all, it is all about healthcare, right?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1 / -1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

Opponents of socialized medicine fabricate this idea that it's the government coming between a patient and a doctor, telling the patient what medicine and procedures they should have. The alternative is money coming between you and your doctor or, as in this case, your employer.

Well, all I can say is I don't want no government bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me.

I want an INSURANCE COMPANY bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me!

Quote:

Apparently the state getting involved in health care is a horrible tyranny, but when your boss tells you want you can't put in your body, that's freedom.

And when your boss puts his pecker in your body, better get on out there and invest some of your hard-earned in contraception, coz you know what's gonna happen if you get knocked up.
 
Colpy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Well, all I can say is I don't want no government bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me.

I want an INSURANCE COMPANY bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me!


.

You have just stumbled on the reason Obamacare is such a fiasco...........gov't bureaucrats are generally incompetent lazy and only really interested in empire building, no matter what the cost, and insurance companies are such a bunch of thieves that they would make Ali Baba blush.........cobine the two??

Disaster.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You have just stumbled on the reason Obamacare is such a fiasco...........gov't bureaucrats are generally incompetent lazy and only really interested in empire building, no matter what the cost, and insurance companies are such a bunch of thieves that they would make Ali Baba blush.........cobine the two??

Disaster.

Ah yes, that old "group judging" thing again. What shall I say about gun-rights advocates, or port security thu. . . er. . . specialists? Well, I suppose I could say they're generally. . . well, you fill in the blanks.

Obamacare is a disaster for a number of philosophical and practical reasons. Your emotion-driven, stereotype-laced concerns are waaaaay down the list.
 
Walter
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

does our government health care cover contraceptive costs?

Nope.
 
Corduroy
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Well, all I can say is I don't want no government bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me.

I want an INSURANCE COMPANY bureaucrat making my health-care decisions for me!

Health care is the perfect place for government indifference. Neither the government nor insurance companies care about your health. For an insurance company you get care based on their profit motive, i.e. how many people can we **** over before people stop giving us money (capitalism). The government doesn't care as much about saving money. So no government bureaucrats actually get in the way of your health. You just get treatment and the doctor gets paid. When doctors and hospitals can rely on actually getting paid for their work, they don't inflate their fees like they do in the US.
 
Serryah
+2 / -1
#13
For a company so opposed to contraception including the morning after pill, Hobby Lobby has no problem backing the companies that make the stuff.

This wasn't about "government" saying what to do with your medical choices, rather a For Profit corporation getting to say what you can and can't have. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for women who wanted say the morning after pill, based purely on religious grounds.

This opens up a whole new can of "WTF" for possible legal suits of the "religious corporations" (cause corporations are people and now religious evidently) vs an individual's rights.

For the record, were religion NOT the reason for all of this I'd have no problem with the decision. But since it was/is...
 
captain morgan
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

This wasn't about "government" saying what to do with your medical choices, rather a For Profit corporation getting to say what you can and can't have. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for women who wanted say the morning after pill, based purely on religious grounds..

Who says that you or I have the right to dictate the individual rights to any corporation . Would it make sense to force corporations to fund mandatory abortions?.... How about mndating that companies are forbidden to recognize the religious practices of the employees of a company?... Make sense, does it?

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

This opens up a whole new can of "WTF" for possible legal suits of the "religious corporations" (cause corporations are people and now religious evidently) vs an individual's rights.

For the record, were religion NOT the reason for all of this I'd have no problem with the decision. But since it was/is...

It is sad when religion is used as the excuse as to justify why someone's rights can be stepped all over
 
Serryah
+1 / -1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who says that you or I have the right to dictate the individual rights to any corporation . Would it make sense to force corporations to fund mandatory abortions?.... How about mndating that companies are forbidden to recognize the religious practices of the employees of a company?... Make sense, does it?

What was being asked here was not to fund mandatory abortions (and unless the mother is in danger, abortions should have to be up to the woman to pay, IMO), we're talking birth control and the "right" of a company to say "no you can't" because the owners don't believe it's right. In a For Profit company, what the owner believes should not matter. What "right" does the owner have to tell an employee what can and can't be done medically? If the company was not for profit that's another story all together and they would have the right to do so, but for profit companies SHOULD be secular and adhere to no religious views with the company as a hole.

The employee's are totally different as a for profit can have employee's of various backgrounds and religions. The choice would be either to permit the religious practices, or forbid all practices. Yet the owners/people in charge of the company should not have the right to say "you do this because my religion says so", which is what's being done here.

I'll throw one back at you: say I own a company and my religious belief is that no one can eat certain foods because it's against my religion to be in or around places with that food. Not gonna fly, is it? Someone is going to get pi$sed off and sue and likely win that suit. Or I tell my workers that they can't have medications at all because it's against my beliefs that people pop pills or do anything to improve or change their lives. It's the same thing here.

IMO Hobby Lobby should just switch to a not for profit/Christian only store that employ's only Christan people, then they don't have to worry about covering those after morning pills and IUD... oh, right... Christians use them too. My bad.

Also, where's your acknowledgement of the hypocrisy that HL has backed these very same things that they are against their employee's having access to?



Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It is sad when religion is used as the excuse as to justify why someone's rights can be stepped all over

Exactly, so the HL owners should keep their religion to themselves and their family and leave their employee's alone to live their lives as they see fit, Christian or otherwise.

BTW - Walter, love you too, thanks for the red
 
Locutus
#16
I can well understand the urge to make fun of left-wingers hyperventilating over the Supreme Court’s “Hobby Lobby” decision against the ObamaCare contraception mandates. Responses such as those collected by Moe Lane here at RedState, and Sean Davis over at The Federalist, are worthy of giggle-snorts. But I can’t help thinking these folks are not merely ignorant or high-strung. They’re not so much ignoring facts as assaulting them. They are deliberately creating a continuity in which all resistance to the collectivist wisdom of the State is tantamount to either anarchy or theocratic tyranny. They’re saying some very silly things today, but a lot of that absurdity was manufactured years ago. Those who peddle it clearly don’t think it has reached its sell-by date.

It’s increasingly ridiculous to use the word “liberal” to describe the modern American collectivist. There’s nothing liberal about them at all. They’re shooting for the ultimate subversion of liberty, by re-defining “liberty” as a form of compulsion. In other words, they’re saying you are being oppressed unless a wise and virtuous dictatorial authority can force other people to give you what the authoritarians have decided you “deserve.” You aren’t “free” as long as you must provide for yourself. Liberty becomes a term used to describe its exact opposite: a set of active obligations placed upon other people. It’s right up there with any perversion of language and thought described by George Orwell in “1984.” Actually, it is one of the perversions he laid at Big Brother’s feet: “Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”

The contraceptive mandate battle is only one front in that wider ideological war. Its roots stretch deep into the founding works of collectivist thought, from Rousseau to Karl Marx, this idea that expecting people to work for what they “deserve” is soul-crushing drudgery, breaking the spirit of common men by forcing them to their knees before the cruel taskmasters who sign their paychecks. Far better to be on your knees before the almighty and inescapable State, where you get to cast one vote in millions for the maximum leaders, every couple of years!

I can’t help borrowing a bit of music from the Sixties to frame the idea, since conservatives and libertarians are, unquestionably, the counter-culture now: “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to buy.” It’s an idea pushed aggressively and explicitly with respect to mandated contraceptive purchases. We are told that if our employers don’t pay for those things, we are being “denied access” to them – as if the Supreme Court had just given Hobby Lobby the power to ban condoms, or fire every employee it catches with birth control pills.


more
 
captain morgan
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

What was being asked here was not to fund mandatory abortions (and unless the mother is in danger, abortions should have to be up to the woman to pay, IMO), we're talking birth control and the "right" of a company to say "no you can't" because the owners don't believe it's right. In a For Profit company, what the owner believes should not matter. What "right" does the owner have to tell an employee what can and can't be done medically? If the company was not for profit that's another story all together and they would have the right to do so, but for profit companies SHOULD be secular and adhere to no religious views with the company as a hole.

The employer isn't telling anyone what they can or can't do medically... All they are saying is that they aren't prepared to pay for it.

This is the big difference that you need to see. Somewhere in the mix, people are confusing their right to use contraception with the employers having to fund their rights.

As far as my mentioning abortion, the point is that it's a slippery slope. If you are able to vilify a corp entity for not paying for contraception, then what's next on the ole hit parade?

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

The employee's are totally different as a for profit can have employee's of various backgrounds and religions. The choice would be either to permit the religious practices, or forbid all practices. Yet the owners/people in charge of the company should not have the right to say "you do this because my religion says so", which is what's being done here.

Non-profits can also have diversity in their employee base, so I don't see why the full blast of this should be directed at for-profits... And yes, the owners of these companies do have the right to say whatever they want and institute policies that reflect this, so long as they stay within the lines of the laws.

Where do you get the idea that these people that control/run the companies do not have the same rights as you?

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

I'll throw one back at you: say I own a company and my religious belief is that no one can eat certain foods because it's against my religion to be in or around places with that food. Not gonna fly, is it? Someone is going to get pi$sed off and sue and likely win that suit. Or I tell my workers that they can't have medications at all because it's against my beliefs that people pop pills or do anything to improve or change their lives. It's the same thing here.

You're making egregious assumptions here particularly in terms of law suits, etc... Fact is, if the entity is playing within the bounds of the existing law, then I don't see much opportunity for them to be chastised in Court because they don't agree with outside opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

IMO Hobby Lobby should just switch to a not for profit/Christian only store that employ's only Christan people, then they don't have to worry about covering those after morning pills and IUD... oh, right... Christians use them too. My bad.

This isn't about your perception of Christians and what birth control choices that they make... Hell, who appointed you Grand Inquisitioner on the subject.

If a Christian wants to take morning after pills, that's their business, and if their employer decides that they don't want to foot the bill for it, well, that's the company's business

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Also, where's your acknowledgement of the hypocrisy that HL has backed these very same things that they are against their employee's having access to?


... So, your beef is that you believe that any/all Christians should march to the beat that you decide as per your understanding of religious practice.

How tolerant of you

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Exactly, so the HL owners should keep their religion to themselves and their family and leave their employee's alone to live their lives as they see fit, Christian or otherwise.

That's exactly what the employers are doing.... It's the lefty do-gooders that are making the play to force these people/groups to adopt their philosophy because they (apparently) know best.

Again, no one is saying what kind of birth control that someone can use (employees incl) - they are saying that you can make your own decision and pony-up the cash yourself.
 
Walter
#18
The title of this thread is incorrect. SCOTUS has given permission to some employers not to fund abortion methods not contraceptive methods.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Umm. . . this case was about employers paying for it. Just sayin'.

I don't think the Supremes broke the right way on this, but the good news is, now that employers can dodge paying for contraception, it's the excuse the Dumbocrats needed to make the government pay for it.

So, you win. How's victory taste, General Pyrrhus?

Look it up.

Right... in this case employers...my mistake.

As in this was a Pyrrhic victory? Is the government going to make a separate contraception health plan for employees whose plan doesn't cover it? The Gold Rubber Plan?

Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

For a company so opposed to contraception including the morning after pill, Hobby Lobby has no problem backing the companies that make the stuff.

This wasn't about "government" saying what to do with your medical choices, rather a For Profit corporation getting to say what you can and can't have. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for women who wanted say the morning after pill, based purely on religious grounds.

This opens up a whole new can of "WTF" for possible legal suits of the "religious corporations" (cause corporations are people and now religious evidently) vs an individual's rights.

For the record, were religion NOT the reason for all of this I'd have no problem with the decision. But since it was/is...

Here is an idea... THEY CAN PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The employer isn't telling anyone what they can or can't do medically... All they are saying is that they aren't prepared to pay for it.

Which should be the end of story. But no... libtards will be libtards.
 
Goober
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who says that you or I have the right to dictate the individual rights to any corporation . Would it make sense to force corporations to fund mandatory abortions?.... How about mndating that companies are forbidden to recognize the religious practices of the employees of a company?... Make sense, does it?



It is sad when religion is used as the excuse as to justify why someone's rights can be stepped all over

They entered the free market and should abide by the laws, regulations that all others have to abide by.
Bringing their personal religious beliefs and telling their employees, due to this religious belief, I am exempt from this or that.
Your religious beliefs, stop at the entrance to the free marketplace for profit door. It is not a get out of rules free card.
Now religious orders, get that pass. Companies should not.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who says that you or I have the right to dictate the individual rights to any corporation . Would it make sense to force corporations to fund mandatory abortions?.... How about mndating that companies are forbidden to recognize the religious practices of the employees of a company?... Make sense, does it?



It is sad when religion is used as the excuse as to justify why someone's rights can be stepped all over

And that is why the SC ruled that way. Religion, not rights.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Right... in this case employers...my mistake.

As in this was a Pyrrhic victory? Is the government going to make a separate contraception health plan for employees whose plan doesn't cover it? The Gold Rubber Plan?

Ever heard the saying "Politics is the art of the possible?"

Seriously, Eagle, I'm no happier than you are about the idea of employer-provided or government-provided contraception. But you gotta know the way the wind blows.

This is really simple. Women will demand cost-free contraception. And it will be provided. And the Republicans won't stop it, because they want the women's vote too.
 
Goober
#22
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/op...ml?ref=opinion

The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.

It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when the exemptions would hurt other people.

As a threshold matter, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., read the act’s religious protections to apply to “the humans who own and control” closely held companies, an interpretation contradicted by the statute’s history, context, and wording. He then found that the contraceptive coverage rules put a “substantial burden” on the religious owners, who objected to some of the items on the F.D.A.’s list based on the incorrect claim they induce abortions.

It’s hard to see that burden. Nothing in the contraceptive coverage rule prevented the companies’ owners from worshiping as they choose or advocating against coverage and use of the contraceptives they don’t like.
 
captain morgan
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

They entered the free market and should abide by the laws, regulations that all others have to abide by.
Bringing their personal religious beliefs and telling their employees, due to this religious belief, I am exempt from this or that.
Your religious beliefs, stop at the entrance to the free marketplace for profit door. It is not a get out of rules free card.
Now religious orders, get that pass. Companies should not.

You need to get your head around this Goobs.

The employers are not telling their people what kind of contraception it is that they can use.. Use what ever the hell you want... This is all about assuming personal responsibility and not forcing the will of some leftards onto the consciousness of everyone by virtue of legislating that they pay out of pocket for this.

PS - The 'healthcare' angle is a huge crock of sh*t

I am floored that you can not see this... Take a look at Bones' post above - it summarizes the reality of this situation perfectly
 
Goober
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You need to get your head around this Goobs.

The employers are not telling their people what kind of contraception it is that they can use.. Use what ever the hell you want... This is all about assuming personal responsibility and not forcing the will of some leftards onto the consciousness of everyone by virtue of legislating that they pay out of pocket for this.

PS - The 'healthcare' angle is a huge crock of sh*t

I am floored that you can not see this... Take a look at Bones' post above - it summarizes the reality of this situation perfectly

It is the law. They received an exemption based upon their personal religious beliefs. There is no room in the marketplace for that. In some cases that would create an unequal playing field for their competitors.
The law is the law.
Religious orders, I can agree with, free market, no way.
 
captain morgan
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

It is the law. They received an exemption based upon their personal religious beliefs. There is no room in the marketplace for that. In some cases that would create an unequal playing field for their competitors.
The law is the law.
Religious orders, I can agree with, free market, no way.


It never should have been in the law to begin with... As far as the exemption is concerned, what makes the rights of the owners any less than the rights of their employees?

You go on about how someone's 'rights' are being trampled on, by virtue of them not being subsidized by the employer.

It's horse sh*t to state that they are being denied anything
 
EagleSmack
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Ever heard the saying "Politics is the art of the possible?"

Seriously, Eagle, I'm no happier than you are about the idea of employer-provided or government-provided contraception. But you gotta know the way the wind blows.

This is really simple. Women will demand cost-free contraception. And it will be provided. And the Republicans won't stop it, because they want the women's vote too.


Yup... we're now a gimmee-gimmee nation.


Secretary of Free Contraception
 
Goober
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It never should have been in the law to begin with... As far as the exemption is concerned, what makes the rights of the owners any less than the rights of their employees?

You go on about how someone's 'rights' are being trampled on, by virtue of them not being subsidized by the employer.

It's horse sh*t to state that they are being denied anything

Does not matter if it should have been law, it is the law.
And the swing vote on the SC ruled it fell under commerce.
 
EagleSmack
#28
edit
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Yup... we're now a gimmee-gimmee nation.


Secretary of Free Contraception

OK, so now you got me supporting it! Secretary of Free Contraception sounds like a sweet gig.
 
captain morgan
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Does not matter if it should have been law, it is the law.
And the swing vote on the SC ruled it fell under commerce.

I see that you keep dodging the base issue that this has to do with who is expected to pay s opposed to an infringement of actual rights.... Further, you speak long and loud about the employees rights, but conveniently ignore the rights of the owners.

Funny how your argument loses all it's steam when this wee issue is brought forth
 

Similar Threads

51
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled....
by B00Mer | Sep 12th, 2011
2
All the way to the Supreme Court again...
by CDNBear | Dec 29th, 2006
11
US Supreme Court moves even further right.
by Hard-Luck Henry | Dec 15th, 2005
no new posts