Five men choose for all women
by Kevin_Foley
 Politics Progressive
July 03, 2014 01:25 PM | 2192 views | 8 8 comments | 91 91 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

The Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby is a pyrrhic victory for Christian evangelicals who think it's the right of an employer to refuse to provide contraception in its health insurance plan.

The only possible outcome is more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

Five conservative men were in the majority on the SCOTUS ruling while the three women justices were in the minority. Once again, we have right wing men telling American women what's best for their health; five government lawyers deciding what only a woman and her doctor should determine.

Under Obamacare, companies the size of Hobby Lobby must provide health insurance to its employees. Contraception has always been available in these plans.

But Hobby Lobby is owned by evangelicals who mistakenly believe contraception is the same as abortion, so they object to providing birth control to employees enrolled in their plan.

Their "freedom of religion," it seems, trumps your freedom not to believe what they believe.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blasted the five males in the majority:

  • "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's...plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults." 

If you are a woman who works at Hobby Lobby, you are now forced to subscribe to the same religious beliefs as your employer. So, noted Ginsburg, businesses owned by Jehovah Witnesses can now refuse to provide blood transfusions in their health insurance plans.

"Medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin" can be banned in the plans of companies owned by some Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, she added.

  • "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude...The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
Comments-icon Post a Comment
July 07, 2014
Kev, Kev, Kev. What are we gonna do with you?

Blew me out of the water, eh? Not likely since you obviously don't know the difference between access to contraception and subsidizing contraception.
Kevin Foley
July 07, 2014
CobbCoGuy - My blog is about the Godawful SCOTUS ruling that hurts women. You start blathering on about the IRS because I blew your arguments out of the water.

The examiner is a right wing propaganda organ.

July 06, 2014
Progressives are pretty slippery, don't you agree? Instead of addressing my comments head-on, Mr. Foley, hedges, talks around, evades, and, for all intents and purposes, completely ignores what I actually wrote.


Since Mr. Foley doesn't want to discuss Hobby Lobby, how about a couple nuggets to brighten your day.

Billionaire environmentalist Democrat donor Tom Steyer has pledged $100M to the 2014 elections. Tom Steyer has major money invested in...coal. See NYTimes, Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal, by Barbaro and Davenport, July 4, 2014.

There's a word...hmmm...what is it? Hyp? Hip? Hippo? Hypo? Hyper? Hypocrite!!!

Next, the IRS will appear before federal judges this week on July 10 and 11. From the, July 1, 2014, Mark Tapscott:

"IRS attorneys will be in the federal District Court on July 10 to explain why the government failed to tell Judicial Watch about the lost emails for months despite their being evidence in the nonprofit's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit."

And, on July 11, "[The IRS]...will have to explain to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton why the IRS shouldn't be required to let an outside expert evaluate whether emails on the computer hard drives of former IRS official Lois Lerner and six colleagues really are lost forever, as the agency recently told Congress."

Get the popcorn.
Kevin Foley
July 04, 2014
CobbCoGuy - Do I have to help you with the birds and the bees too?

No contraception = more unwanted pregnancies = more abortions. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

In addition, women use birth control pills to treat various ailments. Ask your wife about this in the unlikely event you have one sharing that double wide with you.

Finally, I will take Justice Ginsburg's word ahead of yours. I suspect her intellect beggars yours.
July 03, 2014
Your analysis is misleading and flat out wrong.

The decision is not about access to contraceptives. Women still have access to all the contraceptives they want.

The decision is also not about establishing an employer-theocracy as you claim.

The issue is who is paying for the contraceptives and Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for certain contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is not willing, and now not required, to pay for contraceptives that are considered to be abortifacients.

So, women, if your ovaries are not the business of your employer, fine. Don't ask your employer to pay for your contraceptives. Pay it yourself.

Mr. Foley, why not rewrite this blog, taking into account the education I just provided, so the good people reading this might engage in a meaningful discussion based on the truth.

I'm always glad to help.
Kevin Foley
July 03, 2014
It gets worse:

WASHINGTON — In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

July 03, 2014
On June 28, 2012, Mr. Foley wrote on his blog:

"Here we go into July 4 holiday with a rousing affirmation that, indeed, our democracy and the separation of powers created by the founders works."

I also note in the same blog, Mr. Foley used the term "justices."

The aforementioned statement was in response to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obamacare. That ruling was 5-4; right, Mr. Foley?

Now, two years later, just before we celebrate July 4th again, the Supreme Court, who decided 5-4 again AGAINST Mr. Foley's position, is comprised of a bunch of "government lawyers."

Isn't that interesting?

July 03, 2014
The fact is the Obama Administration could have accomplished their goal without violating religious liberty. None of the plaintiffs argued against the compelling interest the federal government stated it had in providing contraceptives as part of health insurance. Hobby Lobby's current coverage already covered sixteen different contraceptive products so that was never the issue. Cast in the most positive light possible, your mischaracterization of the position of the plaintiffs is intellectually dishonest.

The argument made in Justice Ginsburg's dissent was simply that "the connection between the families’ religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial (p. 22, Justice Ginsburg dissent)." So just like that she is prepared to say their religious faith does not matter. This is a staggering statement that is condescending and arrogant. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito rightly calls this statement what is really is, the other side calling such religious beliefs flawed.

What those who disagree with the ruling do not want to admit is that this case was quite simply about abortion. The court rightly rules that the government failed to meet its burden of using the least burdensome method to accomplish the goal from which the compelling interest arises. The principle argument used by HHS was that the religious belief expressed by the Hahn and Green families was unreasonable. The court quite firmly rebuked that argument and spoke clearly saying the court has no business making such a determination. The case could have been brought by Mormons or Jews or Muslims or any other faith group and the result would have been the same. In this case the plaintiffs just so happen to be Christian. The court ruled that the contraceptive mandate violates RFRA and did not rule on the First Amendment claim made by the plaintiffs, though I strongly believe that they would have ruled for the plaintiffs on First Amendment grounds were RFRA not an issue.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides