FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/30/2014 8:20:40 AM PDT by topher
Monday’s ruling in the case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby is an important victory for religious liberty for people of all faiths, regardless of what secularists will argue in their criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision. Liberals have tried to obfuscate the real issue in the case by insisting that it was about the merits of employer-mandated healthcare, the propriety of contraception, or the right of a woman to have an abortion.
In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Basically, Hobby Lobby did not object to contraceptives but to contraceptives that cause abortion...
The SCOTUS opinion is a narrow decision affecting privately-held corporations being forced to pay for employees’ abortificients. It does not protect publicly-held corporations, nor corporations whose religious beliefs oppose hiring open homosexuals.
And Traitorobama could well order his HHS gestapo to directly fund abortificients to those employees whose companies do not provide them.
The Obama HHS will react to the ruling by issuing regulations requiring fedgov to pay for these drugs.
If they do that, how is it any different from the Obama administration telling those corporations that they aren’t paying for the meds because the insurance company is paying for them?
SC wants to make sure that they don’t step on religious freedoms in anticipation of shariah law once Islam is made the law of the land. Hey the government should have the right to lop off your head if you don’t convert to Islam or fail to obey.../s
I didn’t see what the ruling was 5-4? 7-2?
All contraceptives cause an abortion....even when taken to supposedly not fertilize the egg.
Hogwash.
It was 5-4 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor dissenting).
And employees of Hobby Lobby could still seek abortions and those other contraceptives out of their own budgets.
I believe the hyde amendment should prevent govt from paying.
thanks, i should have scrolled down furthur on FR, found it their.
Condoms?
I believe around 1910 the Protestants started to allow Contraception, just as some parts of the Protestant Church sanction same-sex marriage
The opinion of the minority four is staggering. In short, govt do whatever they wish to do.
Really? With all do respect. I think that’s a stretch.
noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def 1 ) .
4.
an immature and nonviable fetus.
I hope you’re right, but I have my doubts.
The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!
Putting aside for the moment that “statist left” and “logical” should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the “free” chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.
At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal “Tsk, tsk”, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.
Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to – where else – MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.
Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: “It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”
And before you hit the reply button with “What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?”
You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!
The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.
And while we’re discussing “hypocrisy”, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?
That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.
And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: “A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways”.
What does that say about 21st century America?
Just sayin’
Dick Bachert
6 30 2014
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.