Skip to comments.Justices Divide By Gender In Hobby Lobby Contraception Case
Posted on 03/25/2014 5:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
There was a clear difference of opinion between male and female justices at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The issue was whether for-profit corporations, citing religious objections, may refuse to include contraception coverage in the basic health plan now mandated under the Affordable Care Act.
The female justices were clearly supportive of the contraception mandate, while a majority of the male justices were more skeptical.
The lead challenger in the case is the Hobby Lobby corporation, a chain of 500 arts and crafts stores that has 13,000 employees. The owners object to two forms of contraception, IUDs and morning-after pills, which they view as a form of early abortion.
Hobby Lobby lawyer Paul Clement had barely begun his argument when he was pelted with a series of hypotheticals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led off: What about employers who have religious objections to health plans that cover other basic medical procedures blood transfusions, immunizations, medical products that include pork?
Clement replied that each would have to be evaluated by the courts to see if it is fully justified and accomplished by the least restrictive means.
Justice Elena Kagan observed that using that reasoning, an employer might have a religious objection to complying with sex discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, family leave laws and child labor laws, to name just a few.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
“The female justices were clearly supportive of the contraception mandate, while a majority of the male justices were more skeptical.”
Actually should read:
The Commie/Leftist justices were clearly supportive of the contraception mandate...
How about the court simply reads the constitution and show us where it authorizes the federal government to be involved in any of this?
The other procedures are clearly life saving.
Snuff Control isn’t about saving lives.
It’s about sex.
If paying for your sexual activities is covered then why would prostitution be illegal?
That’s because all the female justices on the SC are lefty bitches. And at least one of them chows on box.
NPR always casts issues as racist, sexist, this-ist or that-ist.
“Justice Elena Kagan observed that using that reasoning, an employer might have a religious objection to complying with sex discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, family leave laws and child labor laws, to name just a few”.
Was Kagan even a law clerk before she got the supreme court position. Her statement is not worthy of a pre-school playground argument. “What if they decide human sacrifice is OK too?” should have been thrown it to help make her point.
If you like your insurance, you can keep it.
The government had no right to impose this on anyone.
This cannot be what is meant by the words "self-government" or "constitutional republic."
If Roberts hadn’t called the penalty a tax, he wouldn’t have to deal with any of this. There would be no law. Damn you Roberts.
I agree with you completely.
However the Washington crowd thinks that our ideas are about 100 years out of style.
Amazing how these Feminist justices turned a RELIGIOUS ISSUE into a WOMEN'S ISSUE, just like magic!
Kagan hit it square on the head — what if religious beliefs of this that or the other thing blah blah blah — that is indeed what the Court is considering, whether the government can make laws regarding the establishment of religion. Sotomeyer says, what about restrictions on pork? You mean, Islam? That goes for Kagan as well — equality for women is outlawed under Islam, will the Court rule in favor of Islamic “rights”? Leave those two leftwing demagogues out in the open where they belong, showing that they are unfit to sit on ANY bench. Thanks JimRob.
And note the partisan media shill author of this article has a number of entries in the FRchives:
Chows on box?
unbelievable the mouth on you.
Where’d you learn to talk like that?
And Hobby Lobby is comfortable paying insurance for people to get gender transformation operations......
I meant to say she eats at the Y.
Exactly right. And the Feds don't belong involved with any of that.
These are clearly issues that should be decided on a state by state basis, with an eye on home rule and the Tenth Amendment.
This case is a perfect opportunity for a dramatic house cleaning which (of course) will not happen with the current Black Robes and their cushy lifetime appointments, led by the traitor John Roberts.
Obamacare was known to be a tax, from its inception. The Republicans were too stupid to figure this out. “Why is the IRS being made as the policing agency for Obamacare???” they asked.. Then during arguments before SCOTUS, the Dems exposed their dirty little secret that it was a TAX. A grand deception that should’ve gotten every single one of them IMPEACHED, and Pelosi in jail. Pelosi also hid ACTUAL CBO cost estimate reports from Congress during deliberation in Congress, let alone committing a felony by falsifying Barry’s certification of eligibility as a 2008 presidential candidate.
Oh that really did it. Tears are coming out of my eyes.
I wonder how Kagan feels about Obama/Holder refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or immigration laws? Hmmmm, Elena?
Really? I hadn’t heard that one?
My position is that I don’t want the govt. or my employer involved in my health/medical insurance. That would solve a lot of problems.
Roberts didn’t have to see it as a tax. He could have joined Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, all who saw it as a penalty. That would have been the end of it.
It would no longer matter that “Obamacare was known to be a tax, from its inception.” That opinion would have been worthless, as it should have been. Again, damn you John Roberts.
Is that the box that the cherries come in ?
Can you believe this nonsense? From a member of the Supreme Court?
Well, if it lines up in the Court along sex lines, we are sunk. John Roberts will side with the women, so as to not be embarrassed at DC cocktail parties.
Former Solicitor General Elana should be impeached for non-recusal over the ACA. To sit here and participate in a post-ACA case, impeachment is too good a remedy... now should be tried for treason.
So, they cannot be objective. Disgusting. I mean, what does Ginsburg have to worry about? haha
According to the Mayo Clinic: ParaGard is an intrauterine device (IUD) . . . produces an inflammatory reaction in the uterus that is toxic to sperm. If fertilization occurs, ParaGard keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus.
If life begins at fertilization, which is an entirely reasonable scientific and moral perspective, then the IUD ends an innocent life by preventing implantation.
As with the IUD, the morning-after pill can reasonably be seen as ending an innocent life by preventing implantation.
Both the IUD and the morning-after pill are active measures to end the life of a fertilized egg that is living, has the DNA of a unique human being, and in the absence of any other action would grow into a baby. I consider attempting to force someone to participate in what they reasonably see as evil to be the height of evil itself. The Obama Administration disgusts me, as do Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.
There's a reason I refer to those despicable, arrogant, [redacted] as black-robed god-kings… it's far less insulting/offensive (meaning usable in mixed company) than the redacted portion.
Oh come on now... it's a lifetime appointment, nobody knows how long a lifetime will be.
Maybe they'll die suddenly, you know, like Breitbart.
I have no doubt that some similar concern is behind some of the aberrant behavior exhibited by a couple of the Justices.
This is NOT about Contraception!! Contraception is OK with Hobby Lobby....this is about ABORTIONS, the IUD and the “Morning After Pill”.. and the BLOOD THIRSTY WOMEN on the Court want MORE DEAD BABIES.....they are DISGUSTING, VILE, EVIL, and STUPID!!