Posted on 06/30/2014 1:22:32 PM PDT by rootin tootin
This morning’s Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby will doubtless precipitate a flood of stories from the establishment “news” media claiming that an entrenched cadre of conservative justices have dealt a grievous blow to the reproductive freedom of women and somehow endowed corporations with religious rights. These reports should be ignored as so much hysterical nonsense. What the Court actually said was that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires the government to provide closely held corporate objectors to Obamacare’s contraception mandate the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organizations.
The Green and Hahn families, who own two such closely held corporations, sued the Obama administration because the contraception mandate would have forced them to abandon their religious beliefs or go bankrupt. Both families considered this an outrageous violation of their religious rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment and reiterated by RFRA, a 1993 law passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and enthusiastically signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. In a ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Why is it still be reported they ruled, “in favor,” of Hobby Lobby, when Hobby Lobby will still be paying for contraception, just in a more roundabout way?
Reproductive freedom? Hmmmm... I don’t think reproduction is the goal.
Liberals on facebook are having a sh@tfit. It’s absolutely comical.
When i was into sport coitus i bought condoms even has a bad little 16 year old what the hell is the problem people can’t fork over a few bucks so they can play I mean what does the pill cost 20 bones a month
I wouldn’t know. Every time I find out one of my acquaintances on facebook is a liberal, I unfriend them.
ZOT!
Screw them. They can bring it to the streets. I’ve had it with these idiots. They’re so stupid they don’t even know Clarence Thomas is black.
Someone on the sauce today?
I don’t unfriend them. It’s too much fun offending them, with facts, until they unfriend me.
They seem to have forgotten something called conscientious objector.
FWIW, I’m appalled that the local idiots who pass themselves off as newscasters are saying that the decision is against birth control. It’s against abortion!
I’ve tried that, but it is like arguing with a bucket of mud.
Because Roberts and Kennedy didn't want to be seen by the public as openly trashing the constitution for Obama once again?
Well no.
They presented well reasoned arguments that in effect support the Constitution
RE: Why is it still be reported they ruled, “in favor,” of Hobby Lobby, when Hobby Lobby will still be paying for contraception, just in a more roundabout way?
If we all think about it... WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR ABORTION IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY. Yes, that includes devout Evangelicals and Roman Catholics.
One simple question tells us that — DO YOU PAY OUR TAXES?
If the answer is “yes”, then YOU DO PAY FOR ABORTION whether you like it or not.
Democrat heads are exploding because the entire universe isn't exactly as they want it.
It is not clear by Alito’s language that HL will be bound by the accommodation provided by the non profit, the editors at national review don’t seem to think so.
Read their lead article and see what you think. I will listen to Levin and trust his analysis.
Also, apparently the 11th circuit has of this afternoon has said it will no longer enforce the contraceptive mandate on non-profits as they expect that will be struck down by SCOTUS.
It’s my understanding HL is willing to support pregnancy “prevention”, but is against supporting pregnancy “termination”.
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.