Skip to comments.Senate Democrats unveil legislation to reverse Hobby Lobby ruling
Posted on 07/09/2014 9:10:41 AM PDT by maggief
Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Wednesday to effectively reverse the Supreme Courts 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 Acts 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 bills 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 Womens Law Center and a supporter.
The lawmakers expressed concern the high courts ruling could be used to justify employers refusing to cover blood transfusions, HIV treatment and other medical expenses.
What if the boss doesnt believe in any medical care? We have a religion that doesnt 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 courts ruling but Democratic senators said they were hopeful he would back their effort.
Weve 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 ObamaCares 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.
Doesn’t legislation have begin in the House?
How do you "get between" a person and what you provide for that person?
Is that one of the laws we are still following?
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?
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.
No, but the house can do what with this bill what Harry Reid has done with every republican bill from the house. Nothing.
Spending bills, not sore loser bills!
Dead on arrival legislation that is intended to do nothing more than inspire the stupid to keep voting democrat.
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.
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.
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...
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.
“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....
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.
Remeber when obamacare got past the SCOTUS? It was all “hey it’s law so deal with it”............................ Not now though huh?
It’s in the penumbra!
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?
Why not just put a big fence around Detroit .... sort of like ‘Escape From New York”
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.
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.
If your contraception is none of your boss’s business, why do you expect your boss to pay for it?
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.
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?
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 ...
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.