Skip to comments.Birth control injunction for religious college draws dissent from female justices
Posted on 07/04/2014 5:39:16 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
The U.S. Supreme Court late on Thursday temporarily exempted a religious college from the contraception coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The decision provoked a sharp rebuke from the courts three female justices. The injunction came down just days after a contentious 5-4 ruling in favor of some businesses that objected to providing birth control on the grounds that it offended the owners beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at pbs.org ...
Why is ANYONE required to pay for someone elses birth control?
How is it that expecting a woman to pay $20 a month for HER birth control pills to keep HER from getting pregnant when SHE has sex is “denying her access to medical care”, which is the boiler plate argument.
You can get all the BC pills and rubbers you want. With...your...own...money.
You could tattoo Sandra Fluke’s face above your hoo hah and you’d never get pregnant.
Potted lefty plants. Crooked lawyers with black robes.
Is Kagan female?
The female justices need to encourage Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states which would give women the right to make someone else pay for their contraceptives. And if the states choose to ratify the amendment then such a right would be constitutionally enumerated and the women justices would be heroes.
As a side note concerning Constitution-ignoring justices, consider that the states would probably be a really dull and boring place to grow up and live in if parents made sure that their children were taught the reason for constitutionally enumerated rights. /sarc
Thanks Citizen Zed.
“Is Kagan female?”
Are any of them Female?
Additional evidence for not having female justices... or at least senile ones.
your money is my money, i need it for my birth control.
she’s a new gender, “shemp”.
the only one i’m sure about being a chick is roberts.
Having no balls is not exactly the same as being a chick...LOL
Here is what the injunction says:
“...the Court orders...To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators...
...Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicants employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives. The Government contends that the applicants health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are required by federal law to provide full contraceptive coverage regardless whether the applicant completes EBSA Form 700. The applicant contends, by contrast, that the obligations of its health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are dependent on their receipt of notice that the applicant objects to the contraceptive coverage requirement. But the applicant has already notified the Governmentwithout using EBSA Form 700that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act.
In light of the foregoing, this order should not be construed as an expression of the Courts views on the merits.”
You can read it here:
One page for the injunction. 17 pages for the 3 justices who have decided the case without hearing any arguments. If they had even a shred of honesty, they would have to recuse themselves from hearing any future case on this issue, since we know in advance how they plan to rule.
To repeat for emphasis:
“...Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicants employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.”
Better, less liberal headline: “Supreme Court men defend religious rights”