Posted on 03/25/2014 12:27:37 PM PDT by Rusty0604
During oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday which focused on whether the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act violates the free exercise of religion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan suggested employers who have moral objections to birth control should not provide health care coverage for their employees
Chief Justice Roberts interjected that this was in opposition to what Hobby Lobby presented in its lawsuit. “I thought – I thought that part of the religious commitment of the owners was to provide health care for its employees,” Roberts said and Clements agreed. “Well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange,” Sotomayor said. The court seemed divided along ideological lines
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
RE: “Well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange,” Sotomayor said
That “greater salary” has no tax benefits whatsoever to Hobby Lobby. Which means they LOSE financially.
I have a better idea...how about they don’t go on the exchange and go to Medi-Share...?
Yes. The statements made by Sotomayer prove that she is way stupid. The costs of anything have absolutely nothing to do with why HL is opposing the law.
Reminds me of meetings where I have to ‘guide’ everyone back on track. And it just irritates the heck out of me.
How can you call it “free exercise of religion” when you have to pay a penalty to practice it?
Pay employee greater salary...
Pay uncle sam tax penalty for exercising your religious freedom...
Sounds like another part of the world ...hmmmm?
Strict state enforcement of the 10th amendment would do that,
but, eventually, it comes down to the “civil war” that you referred to.
Because, either the fedgov uses force to impose its will on the states, or it backs off and lets the states govern themselves. And they aren’t going to do that.
(I’ll assert here that we’ve never had a Civil War - one in which two factions are vying for control of the country’s government. The South wanted to secede and be independent.)
Hobby Lobby contends it’s against their religious beliefs to provide birth control. So this idiot on the SC thinks raising the employee’s pay is not the same thing.
I’ll agree with that assessment!
The South didn’t want to take over the North. They just wanted their freedom from ol dictator Abe...
Yup. Condomdepot.com generally has good-quality condoms, at less than $.50 each, especially once you start buying in low bulk. Not difficult. At all.
American Wars for Independence:
1 win, 1 loss
They are trying to push the employees onto Obamacare.
It is NOT the role of these Justices to recommend or suggest alternatives.
It IS their job to rule on the merits of the case.
I'm going to take a swing at this, but I might miss the mark.
In my experience with health care, one has health insurance so that one can be treated if something adverse happens to the body. Examples might be a broken arm, a ruptured appendix, or cancer. In essence, people obtain health care insurance in the event their bodies become broken or diseased. (Excluding coverage for childbirth), is it the belief of the liberals that birth control for women must be covered by policies because their bodies are broken or diseased?
“free exercise of religion”
Nothing here is free any longer unless it is subsidized.
HL doesn’t contend that, actually. HL has no problem paying for typical contraceptives.
HL doesn’t want to pay for abortifacient drugs.
You point out a tactic the left is using -
they are conflating abortifacients with birth control.
That’s because they know two things - more people support birth control than abortion.
And they don’t want, in any way, to recognize the moral aspect of abortion.
I dunno, I'd argue that you and I are *more* qualified to run the 100, in that I can run 100m. Not very fast, but I can do it. :-)
If Kagan was a sprinter instead of a lawyer, she'd never get out of the blocks, and would spend her time arguing about gun control for the starter, and if the finish line needs to be moved closer to her.
I see it as a move toward single-payer. Get out of that pesky employer-provided insurance.
Yep. Hobby Lobby actually supports birth control.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bji1d4gCUAA0Na7.jpg:large
So now the justices get to argue one side of the case?
That’ll save time, i guess
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.
