Skip to comments.Supreme Court Order Suspends Contraception Rule for Christian College
Posted on 07/03/2014 3:52:58 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and womens rights.
The decision temporarily bars the government from enforcing against a Christian college part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The courts order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female justices Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan who said the court had betrayed a promise it made on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.
Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word, the dissent, written by Justice Sotomayor, said. Not so today.
The court issued a similar order in January in a case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns. That time, there were no noted dissents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
there’s the problem. 2 who are unqualified and think with their female parts and the third who is a senile buffoon.
And the best part is that it is angering feminazis.
Ginsburg hasn't always been a senile buffoon - for many years she was just a buffoon.
Why is the court still in session?
Are you not informed well? They say employer provided health insurance is a RIGHT. They sure are angry right now.
Just as an aside I was at Walgreens today to pick up a prescription, while in line I noticed two over the counter abortifacients for sale. One name brand called One Step for $49.99 and one generic for $39.99
The recommendation on the box suggested that they were to be used after having unprotected sex and that it was not a form of birth control. <— read that again, right on the box, not to be used as birth control.
Makes it clear exactly what it is to be used for.
The court says that Wheaton College does not have to initiate coverage through its insurer, but that instead it can just inform the government that it is not going to cover.
The difference: In the first, Wheaton sets up a diversion that gets the girls their abortions. In the second, Wheaton simply says it’s not providing coverage.
The Government can NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Nor can it establish a religion - including “no religion”.
And what did our Government just do?
the three female justices — it has nothing to do with them being female. It has everything to do with their being democrats and liberals. As usual, the NYT tries to mislead.
The only thing that’s coming out of their ladyparts these days is dust or a slow leak.
Seriously, don’t these people get paid decent money? Is this REALLY the most horrific problem that faces our country today?
Rubbish. As Jonah Goldberg says, (well, tagline):
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Sotomayer again shows herself to be pretty much the village idiot on the court.
Somehow she completely missed the argument from monday that was so clear even non-lawyers can understand, and instead thought that it was some signal that accommodation was acceptable.
Apparently, she doesn’t understand that Accommodation was something the Obama administration freely offered to some employers.
Their offer of accommodation PROVED that the government had a less intrusive way of handling things. That is why the majority cited accommodation. Not to say that accommodation was unintrusive ENOUGH, just that it was less intrusive than the mandate.
Maybe Sotomayer has never learned about logical arguments. Or maybe she doesn’t understand trivial math.
That is very creepy; I recall a news story where a guy slipped something like that to an expecting girlfriend. I didn’t even know there were over-the-counter abortifacients (though I’m not surprised).
“the three female justices it has nothing to do with them being female. It has everything to do with their being democrats and liberals. As usual, the NYT tries to mislead.”
Divide & conquer; Democrats wouldn’t even exist without women like this in massive numbers.
Who says those three are females?
They are, in a Janet Reno sort of way ...
Not nearly enough has been made of the effect of the HHS Abortion Mandate on non-religious conservative institutions. For instance, the Media Research Center is fighting the HHS Abortion Mandate. Given the Catholic faith of Brent Bozell, the MRC will go out of business rather than pay for abortions.
This effect on POLITICAL enterprises run by Catholics and other Christians was, of course, one of the purposes of the HHS Abortion Mandate from the beginning.
In fact, as this article points out at the link, the Wheaton accommodation is exactly the same granted the Little Sisters case: The court issued a similar order in January in a case involving Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns. There were no noted dissents.
Alito is probably wondering what Sotomayor's brain condition is all about. It's an accommodation that's already been ordered in the past.
—— It’s an accommodation that’s already been ordered in the past.——
Extrapolating clarity, it is settled law