Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Live Blog: Contraception Cases at Supreme Court
WSJ ^ | 03/25/2014 | WSJ/Brent Kendall

Posted on 03/25/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by GIdget2004

Lawyer Paul Clement, representing the challengers, received little time to offer opening remarks on his position before the court jumped in with questions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor got things started with this: If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions?

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: contraceptionmandate; hobbylobby; liveblog; scotus

1 posted on 03/25/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

I would be careful reading too much into the questions. We all thought the ACA was goner after the SCOTUS hearing.


2 posted on 03/25/2014 8:32:11 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

The problem with her question is the other references are attached to specific diseases. Pregnant is not a disease.


3 posted on 03/25/2014 8:34:15 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

11:39 am
by Brent Kendall

Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially a key vote in the case, asked Mr. Clement how the court should take into account the religious rights of employees, which may differ from the religious views of their employer.

He asked: Under the challengers’ arguments, do employer rights trump those of workers? Among other things, Mr. Clement suggested the government could step in to subsidize contraception coverage for women who work at companies that don’t provide it, just as the government is doing in cases involving objections by religious nonprofits.


4 posted on 03/25/2014 8:40:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
The key word is corporations. Individuals have the right to stop treatment, not get vaccinated etc etc.

The problem still remains...No individual in their corporation is denied contraception, the owners are just not going to be part of this "sin" for want of a better word.

5 posted on 03/25/2014 8:41:07 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

It won’t matter. You will do as the government commands.


6 posted on 03/25/2014 8:41:17 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Justice Kagan said that while she was sure Mr. Clement’s clients were good employers, Congress has determined that the type of health-care plans they want to offer are inadequate. Congress, she said, made a determination that health plans must include a range of preventative-care coverage for women. When employers seek to deny that coverage on religious grounds, women are “quite tangibly harmed.”

Is she really that stupid? Does she live in a bubble. Could she not be aware the Executive Branch decided what the Congress "Determined" and the Executive signed into law could be delayed, altered, ignored without the consent of the Congress...?

7 posted on 03/25/2014 8:42:33 AM PDT by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Sotomayor must translate to “dumb as a rock” in spanish.


8 posted on 03/25/2014 8:46:34 AM PDT by Post5203 (For the first time in my life, I despise this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

There used to be saying that went something like, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. My response to the Flukes of the world would be yes your employer does have the right to be involved in your healthcare decisions if they are paying for it. If you don’t like that find a new employer or pay for your own insurance. Problem solved. That’s the America we used to live in.


9 posted on 03/25/2014 8:47:54 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions?

How in the Hell does one equate a Voluntary Act with that of Medical Necessity??

She really is an IDIOT!!


10 posted on 03/25/2014 8:52:09 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

So what is this case all about? Freebies. Freebies that are passed out like candy at PP.


11 posted on 03/25/2014 8:53:21 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Whatever stance one takes on the religion component of the First Amendment and a legislative body’s demand that a shopkeeper buy/sell/do things contrary to religious belief, this topic is also a plain old ECONOMIC LIBERTY and plain old HUMAN LIBERTY issue.

If a seller of beans has no desire to blue beans, but only green, purple, and magenta beans, then no legislative body should demand that he do so.

Likewise, if a consumer is interested only in aqua beans and turquoise beans, he should not be compelled to buy blue beans.

This holds whether he is Christian, Pagan, Mulsim or Jew.


12 posted on 03/25/2014 8:58:46 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

I like to think of it like citizens united. The case is based upon the interpretation that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

Spending = speech and it is protected under the 1st Amendment. If that holds for speech, then it will hold true for religious protections under the 1st.

An employee can not force or prohibit a corporation from spending money on campaigns of its choice and certainly can not force the company furnish drugs violate its faith either.

Sonia Sotomayor’s question is irrelevant as the individual employee can go an get blood transfusions and vaccinations without the involvement of a corporation.


13 posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:43 AM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

> If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions?....

Of course they could and should be able to object to vaccinations or transfusions. Or bandages or chemotherapy or the setting of broken limbs. Or asprin or antibiotics or cold medicine.

Whether it’s for reasons religious, economic or for whim.

Or voluntary act or medical necessity.


14 posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:46 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Prayers to protect the unborn and to protect these businesses from supplying funds for the killing of the unborn to happen.


15 posted on 03/25/2014 9:05:31 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

A Pro-Life Prayer For Our President And Public Officials

Lord God, Author of Life and Source of Eternal Life,

Move the hearts of all our public officials and especially our President, to fulfill their responsibilities worthily and well to all those entrusted to their care.

Help them in their special leadership roles, to extend the mantle of protection to the most vulnerable, especially the defenseless unborn, whose lives are threatened with extermination by an indifferent society.

Guide all public officials by your wisdom and grace to cease supporting any law that fails to protect the fundamental good that is human life itself, which is a gift from God and parents.

You are the Protector and Defender of the lives of the innocent unborn. Change the hearts of those who compromise the call to protect and defend life. Bring our nation to the values that have made us a great nation, a society that upholds the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Mary, the Mother of the living, help us to bear witness to the Gospel of Life with our lives and our laws, through Christ, Our Lord.

Amen.

 


16 posted on 03/25/2014 9:06:55 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

The important issue is not if the object. Of course they can object. However, that is irrelevant to an individuals ability to obtain either if they so choose.

Truly a stupid question from the Latina Juez.


17 posted on 03/25/2014 9:08:40 AM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Bingo. Me not paying for someone’s contraception does not constitute blocking access.


18 posted on 03/25/2014 9:14:40 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Soto’s and Kag’s questions indicate that they are deciding on political rather than legal grounds. They are automatic for Obama.


19 posted on 03/25/2014 9:26:35 AM PDT by djpg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Abortifacient’s, Plan B pill etc..are not health care!


20 posted on 03/25/2014 9:34:50 AM PDT by rainee (Her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The problem with her question is the other references are attached to specific diseases. Pregnant is not a disease.

According to Obama it is a "Punishment"

21 posted on 03/25/2014 10:09:21 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I think the problem with her question is that those other objections are not really the same kind of conscience objections. A Jehovah’s witness has a personal conscience objection to taking a blood transfusion, but they have no moral objection to helping a non-Jehovah’s witness get a transfusion. A muslim might object to taking a certain kind of vaccine but they don’t object to helping a non-muslim get that vaccine. So neither one of the other objections should matter for an employer providing insurance.


22 posted on 03/25/2014 10:19:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Why bother with arguments, the Supremes are Obama’s lap dogs.


23 posted on 03/25/2014 10:20:58 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

“He asked: Under the challengers’ arguments, do employer rights trump those of workers?”

What a maroon. What “rights” of the workers is he talking about? The “right” to free birth control?!?


24 posted on 03/25/2014 10:22:43 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

That would not apply to queer beans. You HAVE to supply queer beans...whether you believe in queer beans or not.


25 posted on 03/25/2014 10:23:54 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions? How in the Hell does one equate a Voluntary Act with that of Medical Necessity?? She really is an IDIOT!!

There are religions that oppose vaccination (Christian Scientists) and blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses). Her question is a valid one: if the owners of a corporation can refuse to provide insurance for things that their religion opposes, where should the Court draw the line?

26 posted on 03/25/2014 10:25:06 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: djpg
Soto’s and Kag’s questions indicate that they are deciding on political rather than legal grounds. They are automatic for Obama.

Soto and Kag have never considered the law, not in one decision. They are all about politics - what they wish the decision to be, which is what they will always pretend the Constitution says.

27 posted on 03/25/2014 10:45:36 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

We are 1 deceased conservative justice away from the end.


28 posted on 03/25/2014 10:46:33 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AU72
We are 1 deceased conservative justice away from the end.

We are 1 deceased conservative justice away from the end of any chance for peacefully retaining our freedom. There is a difference, and I hope we don't have to see how different those two paths are.

29 posted on 03/25/2014 11:05:09 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
where should the Court draw the line

or --- where should the government draw the line.

I draw it at the government has no business meddling in private affairs, regulating what private industry does. And for that matter, government and business should stay out of our healthcare entirely.

30 posted on 03/25/2014 11:39:06 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson