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

Skip to comments.

Democrats File Bill to “Overturn” Supreme Court Decision Protecting Hobby Lobby
Life News ^ | 7/9/14 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 07/09/2014 9:56:59 AM PDT by wagglebee

As promised, Senate Democrats filed legislation today to “overturn” the Supreme Court’s decision protecting Hobby Lobby and other companies from being forced to comply with the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare. The high court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.

Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and they said, “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.”

“After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” Murray said. “This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care and their own bodies.”

Not one Senate Republican has signed on to the legislation, which pro-life groups will undoubtedly strenuously oppose. House Republicans will not take up the bill, making it so the legislation will not reach President Barack Obama, an abortion advocate who would sign it into law.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court indicated Congress could change the law to require businesses to pay for the birth control and abortion drugs.

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” the opinion concluded.

“The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,” read the opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

But, Americans oppose the HHS mandate and its pro-abortion requirements.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision this week that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

“Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs,” the poling firm reports about its new national survey.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; hobbylobby; moralabsolutes; prolife
“This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period."

Drugs that kill babies ARE NOTE HEALTH CARE.

1 posted on 07/09/2014 9:56:59 AM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus; narses; Salvation
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 07/09/2014 9:57:29 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 07/09/2014 9:58:05 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The court has spoken; it is settled law. At least that is what old Dingy said about Obummer cair.


4 posted on 07/09/2014 9:59:58 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Wait... what happened to “settled law”? You mean we could have done this with Roe vs Wade at any time?

TEA Party GOP, pay attention! When you take the Senate...


5 posted on 07/09/2014 10:00:08 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Romans 1. Senate Democrats are acting out what Paul warned against in Romans 1.

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


6 posted on 07/09/2014 10:01:15 AM PDT by realcleanguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Bicameral” means they think it will pass the House. Not happening.


7 posted on 07/09/2014 10:02:08 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The LORD’s work at the Great White Throne just to deal with baby killers is going to be a long, long, long line. Starting with America’s killing machine, the Socialist Commie Dimocrats.


8 posted on 07/09/2014 10:02:49 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (MARANATHA, MARANATHA, Come quickly LORD Jesus!!! Father send thy Son!! Its Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Did they flunk civics, or are they just typical libs that really don’t care what the written law is, as long as their agenda is advanced?


9 posted on 07/09/2014 10:03:10 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 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“...their guaranteed access to health care”

First of all there is NO RIGHT to health care!

Secondly, NOBODY is denying ACCESS to ANYONE or ANY THING because of the Hobby Lobby decision. Women can still get all the contraceptives they want. They just can’t make the employer PAY for certain kinds of contraceptives against the constitutional rights of that employer.


10 posted on 07/09/2014 10:03:52 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They can file all the bills they want. It ain’t going no where.


11 posted on 07/09/2014 10:03:56 AM PDT by Obadiah (None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Drugs that”Kill Babies”Are”HealthCare”to LibTurds,Nazis,etc.,etc.,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


12 posted on 07/09/2014 10:04:23 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, passing legislation cannot make it constitutional.


13 posted on 07/09/2014 10:05:03 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Let’s see if Mike Michaud, the congressman from Maine and running for governor as a stelth socialist, has the guts to take a position on this matter.


14 posted on 07/09/2014 10:06:07 AM PDT by Fido969 (What's sad is most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What the hell is bicameral legislation....?........
15 posted on 07/09/2014 10:06:30 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,759 threads and 85,158 replies...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

These idiots flunked Schoolhouse Rock.


16 posted on 07/09/2014 10:06:38 AM PDT by cyclotic (America's premier outdoor adventure association for boys-traillifeusa.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Hmmm... your post was thought provoking...

A “line” would indicate a “wait” for some finite resource.

Just as the Holy Spirit can fully indwell all of us at the same time, I don’t think there will be any “line” on judgement day. The Lord will have all the “time” necessary to fully judge all of us with no waiting.

“Infinite resources, no waiting!”

(not criticizing you, just thinking “out loud”)


17 posted on 07/09/2014 10:06:45 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 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
House and Senate.
18 posted on 07/09/2014 10:08:05 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
It still applies:


19 posted on 07/09/2014 10:08:26 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic
Sorry you flunked civics, Bill...

20 posted on 07/09/2014 10:08:36 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 16 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Y I WS surprised she used the word bicameral. All laws passed are bicameral, in that, all laws passed must pass both House and Senate. Exactly what is she trying to say??

Do low information types even know what bicameral means???


21 posted on 07/09/2014 10:09:44 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Transparent and pathetic attempt to play to the base in an election year. These losers know it isn’t going anywhere.


22 posted on 07/09/2014 10:11:27 AM PDT by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think she is trying to fool the LIV with using ‘bicameral’ instead of ‘bipartisan’ to make them think it is supported by two parties.................


23 posted on 07/09/2014 10:12:28 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,759 threads and 85,158 replies...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Drugs that kill babies ARE NOTE HEALTH CARE.

*********************************

No they are not. Those who promote these drugs are unable to do so without lying, and they know it.

24 posted on 07/09/2014 10:13:15 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The reality is that she probably can't even get the support of most of her party on this. Even most 'Rats realize that supporting something that most Americans oppose AND has already been ruled on by SCOTUS is a bad idea.
25 posted on 07/09/2014 10:16:53 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"What the hell is bicameral legislation"

Bicameral merely means it passed both branches of congress. Thus, all "legislation" is bicameral. This is just a Senate bill at this point and it will go no farther.

26 posted on 07/09/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Of course. It has two humps!


27 posted on 07/09/2014 10:37:58 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

We had take Obamacare...the Liberals can just put on their big girl panties and deal with the HBLB decision.


28 posted on 07/09/2014 10:44:41 AM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I don’t see how they think they can legislate away their Constitutional right to freedom of religion . . . the Court has already ruled on that.


29 posted on 07/09/2014 10:45:43 AM PDT by RatRipper (No need to rob others; democRATS will steal and share a tiny bit with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ever notice how the Republicans lose in court and throw their hands up and call it settled law? Democrats never give up.


30 posted on 07/09/2014 10:56:45 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

That’s exactly why the Democrats keep winning. They never give up.


31 posted on 07/09/2014 11:02:43 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ouchthatonehurt

Kind of like when the Republicans in the House kept passing bills against Obamacare? Like that?
They both do it. I think its pathetic.


32 posted on 07/09/2014 11:04:25 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Are they going to try to repeal the First Amendment?

Are they going to demand that God live by their rules?


33 posted on 07/09/2014 11:27:47 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Neither you, nor I, really know if there will be a “line” or “a mob” all at once. That is HIS business. We can only speculate.


34 posted on 07/09/2014 3:25:34 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (MARANATHA, MARANATHA, Come quickly LORD Jesus!!! Father send thy Son!! Its Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

How about preempting this effort with the repeal of Obamacare.


35 posted on 07/09/2014 5:06:32 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The House should file a bill that declares the whole AFCA unconstitutional (as it is, the Federal Government has no right under the Constitution to compel a business to provide any health care policy) - just as a counter. Won’t happen though...


36 posted on 07/09/2014 5:45:06 PM PDT by utford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Given that (a) no employer ever was required by government to provide birth control before Obamacare, and (b) birth control is dirt cheap and there is no question of any lack of “access” to it whatsoever to individuals using it, this whole thing has patently nothing to do with any bogus “war on women”, and has everything to do with the liberals’ pathalogical hatred of Christians and traditional Christian beliefs and want to eradicate any freedoms Christians have.


37 posted on 07/10/2014 1:06:44 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

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.


38 posted on 07/11/2014 9:20:17 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zencycler

You can amend the Constitution per Article V.


39 posted on 07/11/2014 9:32:10 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Specifically, I think you would need to use the powers to amend to Constitution, per Article V, to make changes to the judicial powers provided for in, I think, Article III, so that those legal interpretations of either existing law or the Constitution itself could somehow be “reversed” by an act of Congress.


40 posted on 07/11/2014 10:00:28 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: zencycler
Nope, you add an Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not rule on squat against that since that new amendment is now part of the Constitution and the supreme law of the land (In theory, we are waaayyyy past adhering to the original intent of our Republic though).

13th Amendment overrode the precedent set in the Dred Scott decision along with several other Amendments which "took care" (Some for the worst like the 16th Amendment) of some Supreme Court decisions.
41 posted on 07/11/2014 10:23:35 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Still, the only way that anything Congress does - even amending the Constitution - qualifies as a “Reveral” of a prior Supreme Court interpretation of existing law, is if Congress changes HOW such interpretations can be reversed.

So even if Congress wrote an amendment that, for example, made employer-paid contraception a new “right”, then even though such an amendment would then supersede a law like the RFRA, it would not effectively be a reversal or the court’s interpretation of the RFRA at the time the ruling was made. Rather, the court would then have to make a new ruling, not based on the RFRA, but based on the amendment which would then take precedence.

However, that while that would be a different case, with a different result, based on a different law (the new amendment), it would still not be a reversal, just a new ruling.

Under the Constitution, a “reversal” only occurs when a new SCOTUS re-interprets the same law differently than an prior SCOTUS, and then makes a ruling that completely changes what the prior court had decided. So unless you change the part of the Constitution that describes how this gets done, than anything else you do to any federal law, including the Constitution, is not a reversal, but rather an accommodation that is made in deference to what the court had ruled, in order to get the result you want.


42 posted on 07/11/2014 11:05:21 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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