Posted on 06/30/2014 8:27:04 AM PDT by sr4402
What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?
“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.
Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”
"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
What did Alito say about freedom of religion?
Alito: “The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
**“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest,” according to the majority opinion. **
BTTT!
In the meantime, to Ms. Fluke.....:-)
I really doubt it. This just provides the left with another opportunity to spread their “war on women” propaganda, which they have already begun doing.
That was the way I saw it also. Planned Parenthood is chomping at the bit for more funding.
Today I will enjoy the 4 Obama slap downs. May there be more to conme.
What was interesting in the majority opinion was that HHS already had in place a less intrusive option (that of buying insurance outside the company). HHS shot itself in the foot.
.@BarackObama is now googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby—
Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) June 30, 2014
What was interesting in the majority opinion was that HHS already had in place a less intrusive option (that of buying insurance outside the company). HHS shot itself in the foot.
"Substantial burden" is the blackrobe term developed by Leftists which has replaced "necessary and proper."
Using substantial burden allows the court to ignore the hundred plus years of the necessary and proper standard. When the dust settles, I think we'll find the Hobby Lobby decision not to be all that great.
LOL Rummy...
This is another part of our strategy to remove the mandates and make Obamacare voluntary. Then both sides win. Those who disagree philosophically can opt out, those who want government-defined health insurance can opt in.
Who could argue with that?
Not really. He hasn't lost anything. He can simply get his Democrat sock puppets in Kongress to try again.
what does this mean? I googled but nothing comes back with today’s date on this subject
That is a twitter post. It’s obviously a joke by the Governor.
The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!
Putting aside for the moment that “statist left” and “logical” should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the “free” chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.
At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal “Tsk, tsk”, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.
Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to – where else – MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.
Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: “It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”
And before you hit the reply button with “What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?”
You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!
The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.
And while we’re discussing “hypocrisy”, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?
That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.
And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: “A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways”.
What does that say about 21st century America?
Just sayin’
Dick Bachert
6 30 2014
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.