Posted on 06/30/2014 6:40:45 PM PDT by lbryce
“Can’t believe we live in a world where we’d even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care based on vague moral objections,” tweeted Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren Monday, reacting to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.
The 5-4 ruling held that requiring for-profit corporations to include contraception in their insurance coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The family of David Green, owners of the Hobby Lobby corporation, had sued the government for forcing them to provide possibly abortifacent medication (“morning-after pills”) to their employees. (RELATED: GOP Cheers Hobby Lobby Decision)
“It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion, “no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for in- stance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation.
“The Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction,” said Warren.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I'm not nearly as decent as you are so I'll say it....absolute filth,very,very dangerous...every bit as dangerous (and filthy) as Osama Obama *and* the former Twelfth Lady.And very,*very* possibly more.
What you mean “vague moral objection”, Kemo Sabette?
Pale face speaketh with forked tongue. Not one of us Kemosabe.
Elizabeth Warren and the Progressives prefer to describe the issue of abortifacients as a vague moral issue rather than a freedom of religion issue because they don’t believe in religion and they don’t understand the concerns.
The left saw the issue of forcing support of abortifacients on religious objectors as a wedge issue that could be used as a precedent to to get the government inside the church.
Let's do W next, Liz.
While the Smerdyakov/Stalins listening to her would be the ones to carry her ideas to their logical conclusion and purge her when the time came.
What does she call opposition to murder? How about opposition to rape? Robbery? Assault? Child abuse? Dognapping? Are those more concrete moral objections?
I've always wondered at the "moral" framework that can defend brutal murderers because human life is valuable but then casually abort an unborn child and go for lunch. Where do liberals draw their moral lines? And based on what? Whim? Fashion? Humidity?
So sayeth Lie-a-watha.
vague moral objection??
seriously?
being against the murder of babies is “vague”??
Most liberals are frothing at the mouth for her to run. She is the next great hope.
Listen, Liz. Your people used to scalp babies and roast them alive so don’t go lecturing us on morality.
so killing your baby is basic health care now?
Typical leftist strawman argument.
Try a coin toss...
the infowarrior
This, coming from a rep of a party that actually called an unborn child a “tumor.”
Ugh, lecture us on “morals,” Runs with Jackals.
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.