Skip to comments.After Hobby Lobby, Democrats Seek To Alter Bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Posted on 07/06/2014 4:54:25 PM PDT by Kaslin
After the Supreme Court handed down a defeat for supporters of the contraceptive mandate, which gave religious exemptions to for-profit, closely-held corporations; Democrats are moving to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
When it was passed in 1993, the bill almost had unanimous support; three votes were against it in the Senate. It seems that our more left-leaning members on the Hill seem to think that RFRA is being used haphazardly to benefit conservatives. As Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View wrote yesterday, RFRA isnt a blank check:
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Dont bring it up for a vote, don’t let them change everything. Make this DOA like ENDA
ONOZ! We can't have laws benefiting conservatives!! Laws are only supposed to be tools for liberals to bludgeon and torture conservatives! Can't have people thinking they get equal protection under law or something.
I love the irony here.
The liberals are forced to take issue with a law passed by a Democrat congress, and signed by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then. This bill would not have passed without their full support, or the support of the Democrat president at that time.
I love it that Hillary will be forced to take issue with a law signed by her husband.
How funny this is, to see liberals have to take issue with a law they overwhelmingly supported.
Alinsky, always Alinsky. There can be no other purpose to this than to focus all the rage of the left on any dissenter.
This wasnt bipartisan. It was written, voted on and signed by one party...guess which one...mainly to allow native Americans the right to smoke peyote.
Typical scum bag democRATS. They’re 100% for a law until a Christian uses it?..then not so 100%.
The Rats are desperate for an election issue.
Conservatives should state Women control their own bodies, and together with their Doctors, are smart enough to decide what is best for themselves.
Where does the government get off deciding what is best for all Women, regardless of personal needs and circumstance???
Women should not settle for the “Twenty” choices the Rats are trying to Ram down their throat’s, Women deserve better
It must be ignored
Way back in 93 when not everything a Democrat POTUS and Congress passed was evil.
Of course they do, that was before they were all Communists.
Politically correct interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to give women the right to demand that their employers pay for their contraceptives. In fact, justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had officially clarified that 14A added no new protections.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since women did not have the constitutionally enumerated right to demand that their employers pay for their contraceptives before 14A was ratified, they still don't have such a right.
So what left-leaning members of Congress, the three female justices, and Hillary Clinton need to do to establish such a right within the framework of the Constitution is the following. They need to encourage Congress to propose an amendment to the states which would give women such a right. And if the states choose to ratify the amendment then the right will be constitutionally enumerated and the left-leaning members of Congress, the three female justices and Clinton will be heroes.
What a great idea, Senator.
Maybe you could just fit them all up with armbands with white crosses or yellow Stars of David on them.
Birth Control is a very powerful issue.
Wait ‘til the nuns get their case up there.
Hey it’s settled law!
This is going get good LOL!
SCOTUS clearly wanted to rule based on RFRA rather than 1st Amendment to keep the ruling as mild and narrow as possible. Without RFRA, the opinion would have been the same but much stronger. Is that really what the anti-Christian left wants, or are they too stupid to understand?
They don’t reason; they emote.
This isn’t totally a Leftist problem, but it’s worse on the Left.
With respect to RFRA, I don’t see why it’s really needed since the freedom to exercise religion is prominently in the First Amendment already. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?
Rather, it states the government cannot “restrict the free exercise thereof” regarding religion. So, what do people not understand?
Little do they realize that what was really on the minds of the men in Congress who wrote the amendment was that women would have the right to have "morning after" pills paid for by their employers. Of course such pills didn't exist yet, but they were farsighted statesmen who could foresee that such pills would someday be invented. They certainly would not want a woman who was seduced by a man like themselves to be punished with a baby.
The First Amendment is the obvious basis for a ruling, but (according to someone on FNC today) Chief Justice Roberts apparently prefers to make rulings as narrow as possible out of his concern for the “reputation” of the Court (his ostensible reason for flip-flopping on Obamacare in 2012).
Hi Verginius Rufus. Regarding
Obamacare Democratcare, given the remote possibility that you have not already seen the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions, you might find them interesting. Regardless what activist justices and the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Faux News, wanted everybody to think about the constitutionality of Democratcare, these justices probably don't want anybody to know that the Court had already clarified the following. The Court had clarified, on several occasions, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healhcare purposes.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added] Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress. Linder v. United States, 1925.
And regardless that Democrats and RINOs will argue that since the Constitution doesn't say that Congress cannot establish a national healthcare program, it means that they can do it, please consider that the Supreme Court has also addressed that kind of foolish thinking.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.