Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Order Suspends Contraception Rule for Christian College
New York Times ^ | July 3, 2014 | By ADAM LIPTAK

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 women’s 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 court’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christiancollege; christians; highereducation; hobbylobby; scotus

1 posted on 07/03/2014 3:52:58 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

there’s the problem. 2 who are unqualified and think with their female parts and the third who is a senile buffoon.


2 posted on 07/03/2014 3:55:42 PM PDT by bravo whiskey (we shouldn't fear the government. the government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

And the best part is that it is angering feminazis.


3 posted on 07/03/2014 4:10:36 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey
there’s the problem. 2 who are unqualified and think with their female parts and the third who is a senile buffoon.

Ginsburg hasn't always been a senile buffoon - for many years she was just a buffoon.


4 posted on 07/03/2014 4:15:41 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The Obamas Black skin has morphed into Teflon thanks to the Obama Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Why is the court still in session?


5 posted on 07/03/2014 4:19:24 PM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

Are you not informed well? They say employer provided health insurance is a RIGHT. They sure are angry right now.


6 posted on 07/03/2014 4:33:11 PM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


7 posted on 07/03/2014 4:37:14 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


8 posted on 07/03/2014 4:57:17 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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?


9 posted on 07/03/2014 5:03:27 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


10 posted on 07/03/2014 5:27:53 PM PDT by falcon99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

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?


11 posted on 07/03/2014 5:46:20 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"...in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights."

Rubbish. As Jonah Goldberg says, (well, tagline):

12 posted on 07/03/2014 5:52:43 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (If birth control is “not your boss's business,” why do you expect him to pay for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; RightField; aposiopetic; rbmillerjr; Lowell1775; JPX2011; NKP_Vet; Jed Eckert; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

13 posted on 07/03/2014 5:54:30 PM PDT by narses (Matthew 7:6. He appears to have made up his mind let him live with the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


14 posted on 07/03/2014 6:11:13 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

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).


15 posted on 07/03/2014 6:32:07 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: falcon99

“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.


16 posted on 07/03/2014 6:35:03 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Who says those three are females?


17 posted on 07/03/2014 7:39:28 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

They are, in a Janet Reno sort of way ...


18 posted on 07/03/2014 7:46:31 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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.


19 posted on 07/03/2014 8:41:17 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; P-Marlowe; wmfights; Girlene
Exactly. Just because Alito said they government had come up with an accommodation doesn't mean that is the only conceivable accommodation.

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.

20 posted on 07/04/2014 4:51:38 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins

—— It’s an accommodation that’s already been ordered in the past.——

Extrapolating clarity, it is settled law


21 posted on 07/04/2014 4:57:07 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson