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

Skip to comments.

Democrats Try to Overturn Hobby Lobby Decision
Accuracy in Academia ^ | July 18, 2014 | Jace Gregory

Posted on 07/21/2014 8:03:05 AM PDT by Academiadotorg

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … unless they really want to. That’s how Democrats interpret the First Amendment. hobby lobby scotus protest

Part of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its liberal allies’ big government agenda was rejected in the Hobby Lobby decision after “several unpersuasive arguments” before the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, yet it appears that they never read the opinion of the court because they keep making the same sorry arguments.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) sponsored a bill last week titled the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 and a sister bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

“The purpose of this Act,” reads Senate Bill 2578, “is to ensure that employers that provide health benefits to their employees cannot deny any specific health benefits, including contraception coverage, to any of their employees or the covered dependents of such employees entitled by Federal law to receive such coverage.”

Written in the bill is an extensive list of reasons that why Democrats believe that employers should be forced to violate their religious conscience:

“Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women use birth control at least once in their lifetimes,” birth control is “one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th century,” “birth control has been directly connected to women’s economic success and ability to participate in society equally,” “Women with access to birth control are more likely to have higher educational achievement and career achievement, and to be paid higher wages,” etc.

Wait a second. Do the politicians supporting this bill think that the Supreme Court ruled that birth control is unconstitutional? Are women being denied the freedom to use birth control if they desire? The text communicates an unreasonable feeling of panic that birth control faces extinction.

This is when it helps to take a deep breath and check the facts.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court it is clearly explained that “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion” by requiring Hobby Lobby owners to violate sincere religious beliefs. It also makes clear that “it is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.” It is not for Congress to say either.

In this case, nothing was decided about the ethical nature of birth control, and women’s access to contraceptives was not restricted in any way. If Democrats believe that women are unable to access the contraceptives that they need, they should do something about it. The solution, which is one of the main reasons their argument failed a couple weeks ago, is straightforward in the Supreme Court’s opinion:

“HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.”

HHS has effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services in the past, and it is inconceivable to define the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a protection for natural persons, non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. Though some people have concerns about for-profit corporations receiving these protections, the court ruled that HHS hasn’t even “pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring.”

So while the new bill claims to be consistent with RFRA, it is inconsistent in its ability to carry out the responsibility that now rests on the government’s shoulders and not on the shoulders of those who have conflicting religious beliefs.

To some people this doesn’t make sense at all. The Democrats just lost in the Supreme Court two weeks ago and without changing any part of their argument, they are taking it to Congress again. How can they expect to win by using the same already-defeated argument?

The truth is they don’t expect the bill to become law. For the same reason their argument failed in the Supreme Court, it will fail in Congress, but that’s not the point.

Think about it. Democrats are saying that “legislation is needed to clarify that employers may not discriminate against their employees and dependents.” Who is being discriminated against? Harry Reid says that men in the Supreme Court need to stop telling women what to do. What did the Supreme Court men tell women to do? Did women lose anything in this case?

The misleading Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 is carefully crafted with the knowledge that when it is up for vote—possibly this week—Republicans will strike it down because it violates religious freedom rights and because conservatives know that nothing, absolutely nothing, is being taken away from women or any other American citizens by the Hobby Lobby decision.

If Democrats can turn this religious freedom issue into a “war on women,” when elections come around they will point back to this bill and say that Republicans discriminate, they don’t care about women, and they are out of touch. All this born-to-fail bill does is function as a tool to enforce political deceit and promote acceptance of an increasingly liberal agenda. Few may remember that this religious freedom victory was a First Amendment victory for Americans of any political party, faith, or gender.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hobbylobby; supremecourt

1 posted on 07/21/2014 8:03:05 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

They don’t hold the house.. why are they even bothering???

(same excuse the right uses for not passing shyt.. they don’t hold the senate/white hut)


2 posted on 07/21/2014 8:04:16 AM PDT by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

RE: Democrats Try to Overturn Hobby Lobby Decision

It WILL happen if American Voters let them ( including those who could have voted by choose to stay home ).


3 posted on 07/21/2014 8:04:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

Murray needs to be reminded that often-deadly venereal disease never enjoyed such a heyday than AFTER birth control came on the popular scene.


4 posted on 07/21/2014 8:05:19 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

For leftists:
USSC decisions in our favor - law of the land, precendent, FOREVER.
USSC decisions against our agenda - a travesty that must be overturned.

5 posted on 07/21/2014 8:05:33 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: Academiadotorg

“The purpose of this Act,” reads Senate Bill 2578, “is to ensure that employers that provide health benefits to their employees cannot deny any specific health benefits, including contraception coverage, to any of their employees or the covered dependents of such employees entitled by Federal law to receive such coverage.”

Yeah. Sounds unconstitutional.


6 posted on 07/21/2014 8:07:19 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: cuban leaf

Why would this unconstitutional law stand when it violates the First Amendment just like the abortion pill requirement does?


7 posted on 07/21/2014 8:12:57 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) sponsored a bill last week titled the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 and a sister bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “The purpose of this Act,” reads Senate Bill 2578, “is to ensure that employers that provide health benefits to their employees cannot deny any specific health benefits, including contraception coverage, to any of their employees or the covered dependents of such employees entitled by Federal law to receive such coverage.”

Written in the bill is an extensive list of reasons that why Democrats believe that employers should be forced to violate their religious conscience: “Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women use birth control at least once in their lifetimes,” birth control is “one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th century,” “birth control has been directly connected to women’s economic success and ability to participate in society equally,” “Women with access to birth control are more likely to have higher educational achievement and career achievement, and to be paid higher wages,” etc.

Wait a second. Do the politicians supporting this bill think that the Supreme Court ruled that birth control is unconstitutional? Are women being denied the freedom to use birth control if they desire? The text communicates an unreasonable feeling of panic that birth control faces extinction.

PFL

8 posted on 07/21/2014 8:16:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg
Welcome to the world of the fanatic! Ever wonder how so many supposedly educated people can get caught up in an irrational war on the right to dissent; a war on the right of others to live according to their traditional values?

Unfortunately, hatred--for that is what usually drives the fanatic--can be a very powerful incentive. While normal people pursue family & personal interests, the normal pursuits of normal people; the hate driven reformer keeps trying to suppress what he or she despises; and the efforts of a class of people, long despised by the reforming zealots in America, to preserve the right of conscience, but infuriate those zealots to ever greater effort.

In case you have not noticed: The people, now assailing the First Amendment in Congress, have generally long histories of trying to tear down the achievements of the Founding Fathers.

William Flax

9 posted on 07/21/2014 8:18:22 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Back before birth control pills, the area around here was free from VD. You could not even find a condom machine in a gas station.

After the pill became legal, almost everyone who picks up a skank from one of the Oklahoma bars gets the clap or crabs,or worse, and all the stores now have condoms.


10 posted on 07/21/2014 8:20:43 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need more than seven rounds, Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

I sure hope “our side” takes this approach with Roe v Wade when we retake the Senate.


11 posted on 07/21/2014 8:24:35 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: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Back before birth control pills, the area around here was free from VD. You could not even find a condom machine in a gas station.

I wouldn't say "free from," but it was certainly a miniscule fraction of what we have today. And it was properly scandalized as the result of immoral behavior, and acted as a teaching object against transgressors.

There never used to be such a ridiculous notion as "safe" sex. That sex ever had to be rendered "safe" to begin with is a neon-sign indication that what had to be made safe was immoral to begin with.

12 posted on 07/21/2014 8:25:31 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Cheapening of the sexual act has led it to be nothing but an outlet for lust and not of procreation...


13 posted on 07/21/2014 8:27:37 AM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Why would this unconstitutional law stand when it violates the First Amendment just like the abortion pill requirement does?

Because the mandate was not ruled unconstitutional, unfortunately. The Hobby Lobby case was not decided under the First Amendment, it was decided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. With the current court, Hobby Lobby probably would have lost a First Amendment challenge to the mandate (after all, Scalia wrote the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which was the decision Congress was reacting to when it passed RFRA in the first place)

14 posted on 07/21/2014 8:31:48 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Why would this unconstitutional law stand when it violates the First Amendment just like the abortion pill requirement does?

That is the conundrum the D's find themselves in.

This does suggest what someone else was saying - that they know they are losing the senate so they are pandering to their low information base. i.e. they know this is DOA but want to make the symbolic move. And look at the sentence I quoted. It's offensive on the face of it.

15 posted on 07/21/2014 8:33:11 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

Hobby Lobby decision was so limited because the company is a “closely held” company — translation — family owned.

Doesn’t apply to any other business or corporation.


16 posted on 07/21/2014 8:33:36 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Employers should NOT have to pay a dime for any of the birth control parts of health benefits.


17 posted on 07/21/2014 8:40:29 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

IF an employer is required to provide birth control pills, why is the same employer required to provide pregnancy benefits?????


18 posted on 07/21/2014 8:41:42 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB

very clever graphic


19 posted on 07/21/2014 8:47:11 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

ah, but it’s too all-encompassing for the Left


20 posted on 07/21/2014 8:57:35 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

When the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA Mandate Roberts said the power to do that is through taxation. All Taxation has to come through the House first. It makes sense because the house is much more representative of population.


21 posted on 07/21/2014 8:57:35 AM PDT by wmap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Employers should NOT have to pay a dime for any of the birth control parts of health benefits.


I agree. And if they DO have to, they are doing business in a fascist regime.


22 posted on 07/21/2014 8:59:46 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

A SCOTUS decision is only “overturned” by a future SCOTUS decision.

New, amended or repealed laws may “abrogate” the decision, but they do not “overturn” it.

And in this case, since a finding of a less restrictive alternative was made, in part, by the ability of the other two branches to employ administrative or legislative changes in order to supply those contraceptives without violating the RFRA, then perhaps such action might actually be better described as “affirming” the decision!

Now there’s a way to screw with a lefty when this subject comes up - refer to it as “affirming” the SCOTUS decision!


23 posted on 07/21/2014 9:06:24 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

24 posted on 07/21/2014 9:11:12 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: pgyanke

good point


25 posted on 07/21/2014 9:18:55 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
They don’t hold the house.. why are they even bothering???

To turn out the Sandra Fluke vote, my friend.


26 posted on 07/21/2014 9:37:26 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Academiadotorg

Then I guess the dimocrats can’t read. The judgment specifically says “closely held.”


27 posted on 07/21/2014 10:13:07 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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