Posted on 07/11/2014 5:44:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Responses to the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby are a study in contradictions. It's "a landmark victory for religious liberty" that gives bosses "license to harm their female employees in the name of religion." A "struggle for the First Amendment has been vindicated," while the law is being "used as a sword to thwart anti-discrimination laws." All the rhetoric sets up the same dichotomy: religious liberty vs. women's reproductive rights. How did two kinds of freedom come to be seen as mutually exclusive?
Here are the basics of the case (insofar as it's possible to call anything about a Supreme Court decision "basic"). In 2012, Hobby Lobby, a crafts company owned and operated by a religious couple named David and Barbara Green, contested the so-called "contraception mandate" in the Affordable Care Act. This part of the law initially required organizations of a certain size to cover FDA-approved contraceptives in their insurance plans. The Greens, along with a Mennonite family that owns a company called Conestoga Wood, said that four of the listed contraceptives violated their religious beliefs because they might possibly prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus. Even if they weren't taking the drugs themselves, they said, they felt morally culpable for paying for their employees to take them.
The question was whether this was a legitimate claim under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Did the mandate "substantially" burden these companies' ability to practice their religion, and did the government have an alternative way to accomplish its goal of providing contraceptive access? For that matter, could companies even have religious-freedom rights?
The Court said "yes" to all three of those questions, but in doing so, it has created a lot of ire.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
What does this code mean? I'm sure it PC for something.
Is it "War on Women" to stop them from killing their unborn??
It's not sanity - it's calculation. The Rats and Feminists and liberals were having fun screaming their heads off, and all of a sudden the Muslims said, "Yo. We want some of them corporate religious rights. You have a problem with that?"
Like diseased deer suddenly caught in the dull red glare of a satanic sun as they spastically fell out of their caves in the rocks, the Rats, Feminists and liberals froze, and whispered, "no, no problem at all, we see your point, yes we didn't consider your needs, sorry, sorry, sorry."
And then they wrote this Atlantic article.
It’s like two people speaking entirely different languages. The libs on the court are arguing from the viewpoint that the decision denies women ACCESS to ANY type of contraception, which is ridiculous. Sadly, though, that’s all the young folks heard, and it’s hard to break through the massive fog created by the media, which, of course, agrees with the lib minority on the Court.
And what happens if her old man can’t get it up without a fifth of JD? Are we on the hook to buy that for him too?
The broader question was whether Legislated Law and or Constitutional Law TRUMPS executive policy created by an unelected bureaucracy? SCOTUS affirmed that where there is conflict, Law Trumps Policy! IMHO this ruling affects EVERYTHING relative to ALL Individual Rights.
It is so ridiculous that the right won't take it seriously, but I suspect it is precisely the sort of message that effectively motivates the left's female voters. Many of them will latch on to any campaign theme, no matter how absurd, that casts them as victims of powerful oppressors. To them, acquiring victim status is vastly more important than being honest.
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.