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

Skip to comments.

Senate Democrats unveil legislation to reverse Hobby Lobby ruling
The Hill ^ | July 9, 2014 | Alexander Bolton 
and Mike Lillis

Posted on 07/09/2014 9:10:41 AM PDT by maggief

Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday to effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision last week exempting employers from having to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

The law would not allow for-profit corporations to seek exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that their health plans cover contraception costs. Religious institutions would still be able to opt out. “Our bill simply says that your boss cannot get between you and your own healthcare,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the bill’s chief sponsor told reporters.

“Last week, we saw the Supreme Court give CEOs and corporations across America the green light to design legally mandated healthcare coverage for their employees. Women across the country are outraged,” she said.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a cosponsor who is in the midst of a tough re-election contest, said over 60,000 women in Alaska who use birth control would be impacted by the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

“I can tell you [during] my trip I just returned from in Alaska, this was the topic,” he said. “Women are talking about this issue as an impact to their lives, their livelihood and their economic security.”

The measure would prevent for-profit corporations from seeking exemptions to any law based on the religious convictions of the employers, noted Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center and a supporter.

The lawmakers expressed concern the high court’s ruling could be used to justify employers refusing to cover blood transfusions, HIV treatment and other medical expenses.

“What if the boss doesn’t believe in any medical care? We have a religion that doesn’t believe in any medical care,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “If you work for that person, sorry. No health insurance.

“What this law does is just takes all the ambiguity out of it,” she added.

Christian Scientists have taught their adherents for more than 100 years to avoid doctors and medical treatment in favor of religious healing.

The Senate bill has 35 Democratic cosponsors in addition to the lead sponsors, Murray and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

“Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical services,” said Udall, who faces a competitive re-election race.

No Republican has yet cosponsored the legislation, although Democrats expressed hope that would change.

The Obama administration indicated last week that the president would respect the court’s ruling but Democratic senators said they were hopeful he would back their effort.

“We’ve been working very closely with them as we worked to put this legislation together,” Murray said.

House Democrats including Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (Colo.) plan to introduce companion legislation in the lower chamber.

The Supreme Court exempted closely held corporations from ObamaCare’s contraception mandate on the basis of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Boxer, who voted for the law more than 20 years ago, said it was intended to protect the religious freedoms of employees, not employers.

“The five Republican-appointed men on the Supreme Court decided in the Hobby Lobby case that the employer, the boss, has total power to deny critical medical care to their employees and they turn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on its head,” she said. “This is an outrage.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; hobbylobby; obamacare

1 posted on 07/09/2014 9:10:41 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maggief

Doesn’t legislation have begin in the House?


2 posted on 07/09/2014 9:12:39 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
“Our bill simply says that your boss cannot get between you and your own healthcare,”

How do you "get between" a person and what you provide for that person?

3 posted on 07/09/2014 9:13:33 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Is that one of the laws we are still following?


4 posted on 07/09/2014 9:13:47 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Just bills having to do with finance.

What needs to be stated, however, is that the requirement in Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional,

and the Senate thinks they can pass some law that says it’s not?


5 posted on 07/09/2014 9:14:50 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Wack job misstatement of the decision does not a political campaign make. Nice try Harry, but even the news media can’t keep this one going.
Even if their claims were true and not bare lies; the rate at which Obummer is screwing up the lives of Americans will keep this from catching so much as a breeze in the press.


6 posted on 07/09/2014 9:15:44 AM PDT by Steamburg (Other people's money is the only language a politician respects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

No, but the house can do what with this bill what Harry Reid has done with every republican bill from the house. Nothing.


7 posted on 07/09/2014 9:16:05 AM PDT by No Socialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Spending bills, not sore loser bills!


8 posted on 07/09/2014 9:16:39 AM PDT by goodtomato (I'm really, really blessed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Dead on arrival legislation that is intended to do nothing more than inspire the stupid to keep voting democrat.


9 posted on 07/09/2014 9:17:00 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Typical crap from the pro-abortion Democrats. Of the twenty types of contraception available for women under Obamacare, Hobby Lobby only objected to paying for four which caused after-contraception abortion.


10 posted on 07/09/2014 9:17:57 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
said over 60,000 women in Alaska who use birth control would be impacted by the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

Now there is a, 'donor', list I would like to get my hands on...
11 posted on 07/09/2014 9:19:11 AM PDT by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

It should read: “the obama-democrat supreme court neutering” bill. The democrats refuse to follow the rule of law, therefore, all democrat politicians and followers should be rounded up and tried for insurrection, and either imprisoned, or banished from the United States for good. I considered summary execution, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be let off that easily.


12 posted on 07/09/2014 9:20:11 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Any, ‘appropriations’, bill is required to start in the house. That is why it is said that the House has the power of the purse...


13 posted on 07/09/2014 9:22:02 AM PDT by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
"Is that one of the laws we are still following?"

Exactly!

14 posted on 07/09/2014 9:25:27 AM PDT by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maggief

If democrats can do this, why don’t they join hands with us and close the damn border?

And send illegals home...

And do it NOW.


15 posted on 07/09/2014 9:25:45 AM PDT by GOPJ (Remember the oath is to "support and defend the Constitution" - not the President. FRrfreedom4u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday to effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision last week exempting employers from having to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

When you start with a complete and utter LIE the rest is immaterial!

The Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY stated that this ruling could NOT be used to disallow blood transfusions and overall medical care! So, this whole argument is simply a made-up ruse to confuse the already confused low-info voters - PERIOD!

More importantly, Democrats (and ONLY Democrats) have FORCED companies to provide healthcare to their employees, and they are attempting to tell them exactly what kind of care must be provided, but then they turn around and want to say that employers shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about your healthcare?!? How exactly does that work? The Obamacare debacle actually allows employers to completely DROP healthcare (at which point they will have made a decision about your access to healthcare) and again, that is IN THE LAW that Harry championed and voted for!

So, Democrats specifically allow for employers to make decisions about EVERYTHING and everyone's healthcare, so why not those specific abortion causing drugs which the company would have a personal aversion to?
16 posted on 07/09/2014 9:31:31 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Obamacare is chocked full of entitlements and has in effect made Sex an entitlement. If American women are too dumb or too lazy to protect and provide for themselves birth control, available free at women's clinics and for far less than the tattoos some females afford themselves but expect the government, read taxpayer, to provide them with the necessary accouterments for safe sex, then they have demeaned and cheapened themselves forever.
17 posted on 07/09/2014 9:32:00 AM PDT by yoe (I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insince, double-talking, radical-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

“Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a cosponsor who is in the midst of a tough re-election contest, said over 60,000 women in Alaska who use birth control would be impacted by the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.”

I did a quick store locator search on Hobby Lobby’s site and there is no store anywhere in the entire state of Alaska.

Lying liars lie....


18 posted on 07/09/2014 9:33:00 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Kinda funny. The SCOTUS decided that the CONCEPT is unconstitutional. You can’t just make a new law to get around that decision unless it is missing the unconstitutional part.

It will also be stillborn in the house.


19 posted on 07/09/2014 9:33:55 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
“What if the boss doesn’t believe in any medical care?"

For 99% of our history, the "boss" DIDN'T have to provide any medical care. That's why it was called a "benefit."
20 posted on 07/09/2014 9:38:00 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Remeber when obamacare got past the SCOTUS? It was all “hey it’s law so deal with it”............................ Not now though huh?


21 posted on 07/09/2014 9:40:47 AM PDT by V_TWIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM

It’s in the penumbra!


22 posted on 07/09/2014 9:49:54 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: maggief

So Democrats make a law (obamacare) that requires employers to fund abortafacients over their religious objections. The law is ruled unconstitutional because it violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Then the Democrats propose a law requiring employers to find abortifacients over the employers’ religious objections.

What’s the definition of insanity again?


23 posted on 07/09/2014 9:51:53 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat

Why not just put a big fence around Detroit .... sort of like ‘Escape From New York”


24 posted on 07/09/2014 9:54:21 AM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegal aliens, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Exactly!

The Senate Dems are so totally clueless, to expect they can create a law that wouldn’t be tossed out of the same Supreme Court as unconstitional. But then again, they’re depending on the same cluelessness in their base voting block to eat this up (i.e., create votes in November) as if it were going to stand up to legal scrutiny.


25 posted on 07/09/2014 9:57:23 AM PDT by USNA74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

That’s right. If they get a SCOTUS ruling, it’s the law. But if a state votes down homosexual marriage, they get a friendly judge to overturn the law. Now they don’t like the Court, so they’re trying a `reach-around.’ Just more grandstanding from a sleepwalking Congress.

And it’s worth repeating thousands of times a day—for six years now, the GOPee does nothing but encourage the Democrats to break the law. Wait a second, the Boehners, McCains, Linseeds and McConnells do keep busy ... fighting conservatives.


26 posted on 07/09/2014 10:12:20 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

If your contraception is none of your boss’s business, why do you expect your boss to pay for it?


27 posted on 07/09/2014 10:17:23 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Without justice, what is the State but a great band of robbers?" - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB
What needs to be stated, however, is that the requirement in Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional, and the Senate thinks they can pass some law that says it’s not?

For the most part it wasn't a constitutional decision. It was about the application of the RFRA. Congress can exempt federal laws from the RFRA, but I don't think it has any chance of passing. This is an election year stunt.

28 posted on 07/09/2014 10:21:36 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: USNA74

Quote; “The Senate Dems are so totally clueless, . . .”

No they are not, they are just desperate to do something to stem the tide of bad news that just keeps on coming. They have two tactics, “Blame Bush” and “War on Women.” Who is to say that they will not get somewhere with the War on Women thing again. Until an effective counter to this nonsense is found, it could very well save a few seats for the dems.

I dunno, to me the perfect counter is to belittle the entire tactic as being a joke in light of the totality of the problems that face us. We face Obamacare, a skyrocketing debt, underemployment of record proportions, skyrocketing energy costs due to dependence on foreign oil, a crisis on our own border, the NSA spying on us, the IRS auditing us, our personnel being left to die in Libya while the administration blames a video and a foreign policy that is making America the joke of the world and the democrats want to talk about a pill!?!? Is that all they can handle, is a pill? The world burns, our country burns and they want to talk about a pill. Ok, we can talk about that but do they mind if we tackle some other minor (cough) issues first?


29 posted on 07/09/2014 10:21:49 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

`reach-around.’...........*snicker*


30 posted on 07/09/2014 11:14:33 AM PDT by V_TWIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

It’s not insanity.

It’s good fundraising marketing. Scare a bunch of gullable people into thinking birth control is being taken away. Propose legislation to “prevent” that from happening. When the Republicans kill the bill, send out fundraising requests to the scared, gullable people telling them that only their donations will help overcome the threat from the extreme, antiwoman right wing GOP.

Then sit back and watch $$$ flow in ...


31 posted on 07/09/2014 11:48:31 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Can someone else please remind our friends on the left what it means to “reverse” or “overturn” a decision of the Supreme Court!

You can not do this with a bill, law, or even an amendment. Only a future SCOTUS ruling can do that. When the two other branches make administrative or legislative changes to get their desired result, then that does not constitute a “reversal” of the decision, but rather a required accommodation in deference to the interpretation of existing law provided by the ruling.

In fact, administrative actions (such as those already provided for religious NOT-for-profit corporations), were explicitly suggested by some writing for the majority. And naturally, the act of changing a law upon which a ruling is based is an obvious remedy, and therefore does not need to be mentioned in an opinion.

It truly dismays me that quotes by left-leaning politicians and media that refer to “overturning” or “reversing” this decision have gone unchallenged.

Certainly, from their point of view, I can understand why the left and their media allies don’t want to frame this with a more accurate headline like:

“Having Failed at an Illegal Mandate, Democrats Defer to Hobby Lobby Ruling to Find a Legal Alternative”

However, I am surprised that, so far, I seem to be the only one challenging them for referring to their efforts as somehow seeking to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision.


32 posted on 07/11/2014 9:16:55 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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