by Carder
Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s health, I will.
~ Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) announcing her intention to push for a bill that would require for-profit corporations to subsidize contraception for their employees, New York Times, July 8
[HT: Hot Air]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is fascism, making corporations and associations agencies of the state through which they exercise policies the state deems important, in this case, mostly to win elections.
The court has already declared such a law to be illegal. Creating another law stating the same thing would also be illegal and gain nothing but grandstanding.
So wait, this bill would force companies to offer contraception coverage, even if they CHOOSE not to? I guess Senator Murray must be anti-choice.
Squirrel!
Senator Murray and the Democrats are successfully distracting us from the work that Sen. Murray and the Democrats are supposed to be working on. Jobs & economy, immigrant children, Iraq & Afghanistan, Iran & North Korea, the reality of Benghazi… real and difficult problems.
Universal employer-paid contraception coverage is not a vital national concern. But Sen. Murray does not want us looking at any vital national concerns, because she isn’t.
So am I to understand correctly: women are healthy when they are sterile?
After the Dalkon Shield, Yaz, NuvaRing, Norplant, and other class action lawsuits, the way I see it artificial contraceptives mess with women’s health.
These comments are funny – because almost every single one of them could be flipped from conservative to liberal and back, depending on the issue you see. In fact Del’s whole comment is typically what I see when conservatives push for abortion laws, marriage laws, and other social issues. I think what’s interesting is the farther left and farther right people get, them more they get like each other.
One note on Eric’s post – I don’t think that’s true – what I mean is, the court made their decision based on a law, not on the constitution, so if new laws were put in place, it would change that dynamic. Make sense?
I don’t often agree with ex-GOP, but today, I do.
I was just going to post that “Senator Murray and the Democrats are successfully distracting us from the work that Sen. Murray and the Democrats are supposed to be working on. Jobs & economy -…” is the flip-side of what Michigan voters are hearing from the Democrats about Republicans passing the Abortion Insurance Opt-out act.
So I will call out our MI Democrats every opportunity I get.
Ex-GOP is correct – the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a bipartisan initiative signed into law by President Clinton. Ah, who would have thought that the 1990’s were the good old days – a time when Democrats and Republicans worked together albeit rarely, but at least sometimes and before we elected this “lady parts-obsessed” President who likes to see how much he can erode American liberties. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
Thanks Barb – one of my favorite statements is “I don’t often agree with ex-GOP…”
The last two presidents have been a bit of a disappointment. I just don’t know how much blame to put on them, and how much on the system of gridlock.
Time for a legit third party.
“Time for a legit third party”
-four parties is very realistic.
the “democratic” party should split into Constitutional Democrats, who believe in the constitution and individual freedom and liberty, and a frank international socialist party that is honest about Marxist politics such as open borders, “livable wage,” and developing as many victim groups as their imagination can manage.
The conservatives should split into a big-business GOP/RINO party that pays favor to the big banks over the homeowner and is able to accept open borders since it means cheap labor, and a Christian-values oriented group that is opposed to killing children before they are born and does not think that human beings need explicit school instruction on how to masturbate.
two or three could ally as they see fit, and make things happen. the constitutional dems might join with the Christian-oriented conservatives to oppose abortion, but might side with the RINOs to support a strong military-industrial complex, and so on.
So to summarise TLD, the first one is the existing democrats, the second is something which has never existed, the third is half of the existing gop and the fourth the other half of the gop – the wannabe theocrats.
Only one sensible choice amongst that lot!
I’d like a party that is focused more on the issues of the middle class. The Dems focus is on the poor – the GOP focuses on the rich – and with costs of things like health care and child care on the rise for years – and wages largely stagnant – the squeeze is tough.
“I think what’s interesting is the farther left and farther right people get, them more they get like each other”
Yup, it is called the Horseshoe Effect. I find it rather amusing, since both groups dislike each other so much.
TheLastDemocrat, the concept of a liveable wage isnt bad. Fact is, people have to be able to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, clothing, and medical care, otherwise societies crumble.
“the concept of a liveable wage isnt bad” – but but, that’s marxismist stuff you’re advocating right thar!!! Commie socialist leninist! ;-)
My ex used to call me a pinko commie totalitarian!!!
Or, Reality, we could just kill all the poor children. Easier for everybody.
I must say I do disagree with your thinking there Courtnay! Why would you say such a thing.
“So wait, this bill would force companies to offer contraception coverage, even if they CHOOSE not to?”
And if these companies CHOOSE not to cover prenatal care — you’d be totally fine with that?
Also, have you ever contributed a constructive, non-sarcastic comment to this blog?
I cannot think of anyone who is morally or ethically opposed to prenatal care. Everyone seems to forget that Hobby Lobby covered 16 types of hormonal contraceptives. They just did not cover four types that acted as abortifacients. Even legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, who is about as liberal as they come, said it was a narrow ruling.
And why the concern about prenatal care if its just a blob, collection of cells, goo, etc. in there anyway?
Ex-GOP: The last two presidents have been a bit of a disappointment. I just don’t know how much blame to put on them, and how much on the system of gridlock.
Time for a legit third party.
Gridlock or not, third party or not, what, really, would a “non-disappointing” President do?
For decades, we’ve had a federal government that’s been less “disappointing,” by deficit financing/vote buying.
The middle class is the cash cow, and the gov’t can’t not squeeze it, going forward in time, sad to say.
Phillymiss: Even legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, who is about as liberal as they come, said it was a narrow ruling.
Yeah, but in the end that does not matter, as the precedent is set. 5 Catholic guys made the ruling, and the supposed “narrowness” is baloney. It’s even already been revealed as such.
Wheaton College, in Illinois, claimed that even just signing a form requesting to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive provisions (a la Hobby Lobby) was somehow a violation of its religious beliefs.
The Court sided with Wheaton.
It’s supposed to be that entities can be given exemptions from some laws when they inflict a “substantial burden” on them exercising their religious beliefs.
Now how in the heck can just filling out the exemption form be a “substantial burden,” there? Oh please….
The Court showed that rather than being “narrow,” it’s essentially wide-open on this deal.
Doug,
“5 Catholic guys made the ruling….” Suggesting, what do you expect from a bunch of Catholic males?
What if I said “5 Jewish women made the ruling…” suggesting: Well what do you expect from a bunch of Jewish women? Might you accuse me of bigotry and possibly sexism?
BTW, Dershowitz is Jewish and male. Tell me how that influenced his opinion.
Also Doug,
SC Justice Thomas is black. Please tell us how that influenced his ruling.
Hey Mary,
I don’t think Thomas’s color matters at all here.
Also don’t think the 5 guys being ‘Catholic,’ per se, matters all that much, but them being religious in such a way does have bearing, I feel. I realized that it sounded sort of critical on my part, and I wondered if anybody would comment.
If anything, I’m surprised that they are all five Catholic.
Dershowitz – don’t think him being Jewish and male means anything, necessary, re what he said. He’s a smart guy. He’s also smart enough to see that while the ruling can be said to be “narrow,” the import of that is next-to-nothing if not outright meaningless, here.
If the Court accepts an entity’s claim, as with Wheaton College, that a thing is a substantial burden on the entity’s religious beliefs, on the say-so of the entity alone, then any pretension of “narrowness” instantly drops away.
Doug,
Thomas’ color doesn’t matter? Says who? Being male matters, being Catholic matters, but not Thomas’s color?
LOL, aren’t we selective?!
I agree that making an issue of Thomas’ color might suggest bigotry, something we know you like all liberals are above, or more accurately, completely oblivious to when its your own.
“Also don’t think the 5 guys being “Catholic” per se, matters all that much, but then being religious in such a way does have a bearing”. Doug, you’re contradicting yourself.
Does being Lutheran or Jewish have a “bearing” or does just being Catholic? Does white and male have a “bearing”, but then there’s Justice Thomas.
Dershowitz being Jewish and male is irrelevant, even though he agrees with the Catholic males, one of whom is black, but THIS is irrelevant, whose religion does “have some bearing”.
So why are the justices faith of “some bearing” but Dershowitz’s irrelevant?
Thomas’ color doesn’t matter? Says who?
In this matter, I say, Mary, as above.
—–
LOL, aren’t we selective?!
Well o’ course. Sometimes a thing will matter, and other times it won’t.
—–
Also don’t think the 5 guys being “Catholic” per se, matters all that much, but them being religious in such a way does have a bearing”.
Doug, you’re contradicting yourself.
No. If you’re not being deliberately obtuse, then my point is that their religious bent is at work, not that they are Catholic, specifically. Were they evangelical fundamentalists, like members of The Sword Of Joshua Independent Full Gospel Pentecostal Assembly, which is located ‘just off State Road 23 on the Frontage Road,’ it could well be the same way.
—–
So why are the justices faith of “some bearing” but Dershowitz’s irrelevant?
How would you see Dershowitz’s Judaism as influencing what he said, there? Meanwhile, it’s not hard to envisage the Court’s Justices as being influenced by their own religion, when it comes to cases involving religion.
Doug,
I like you and always have. As such I must advise you that you are reacting as liberals typically do when their ox has been gored: Bigotry and sexism.
How would I see Dershowitz’s faith influencing his decision? You tell me, you’re the one arguing that faith influenced this matter. So only Catholics and not Jews are influenced by their faith?
You see Doug, you ASSUME Dershowitz isn’t and the Justices are, solely on the basis of their faiths. Are you personally acquainted with any of these men to know for certain what if any influence their religions may have on them or is your assumption based on bigotry? Oh, and the fact your ox has been gored?
Certainly Thomas’ race is irrelevant. I’m trying to make a point that race can be relevant or irrelevant, it all depends. I notice liberals had no problem with a bunch of old white males giving us Roe v Wade, but they sure have a problem with white males giving us Hobby Lobby.
Like I said Doug, who’s ox is being gored? Right?
“I notice liberals had no problem with a bunch of old white males giving us Roe v Wade”
To be fair, one of the RvW Justices was a black male, but they would have had a majority without him so I guess the point is somewhat moot.
Thank You JDC,
Good point.
I like you and always have. As such I must advise you that you are reacting as liberals typically do when their ox has been gored: Bigotry and sexism.
Thanks, Mary. My ox ain’t even got a scratch on an entrail, though, here. I think it’s ridiculous to talk of “sexism” pertaining to anything I’ve posted in this thread.
I’m also not being a “bigot.” I’m just saying that I think the fact that the 5 Justices are religious played a part in their decision.
—–
How would I see Dershowitz’s faith influencing his decision? You tell me, you’re the one arguing that faith influenced this matter.
No. You are pretending. I said the opposite. “don’t think him being Jewish and male means anything, necessarily, re what he said.” <~~~ I already posted that.
—–
So only Catholics and not Jews are influenced by their faith? You see Doug, you ASSUME Dershowitz isn’t and the Justices are, solely on the basis of their faiths.
With all due respect, Mary, that is just plain silly. For the Justices to decide, due in part to their religion, would be no surprise at all. For Dershowitz to say “narrow” or “not narrow” (for that matter) as far as the scope of the ruling, because of his religion – simply makes no sense. Vastly different situations.
—–
Are you personally acquainted with any of these men to know for certain what if any influence their religions may have on them or is your assumption based on bigotry?
Neither – it simply makes sense to take the fact that they are religious into account. What would be obviously erroneous would be to pretend their religion cannot be having an impact in the matter.
—–
Oh, and the fact your ox has been gored? Certainly Thomas’ race is irrelevant. I’m trying to make a point that race can be relevant or irrelevant, it all depends.
Yeah – it all depends on the situation. With Dershowitz and what he said, I think it’s silly to pretend that his religion matters. With the 5 Justices and their decision, I think it’s silly to pretend that it doesn’t matter.
—–
I notice liberals had no problem with a bunch of old white males giving us Roe v Wade, but they sure have a problem with white males giving us Hobby Lobby.
Reagan pretty much appointed the Roe court, so what the hey…. ; )
Personally, I don’t care much about the Hobby Lobby decision – don’t think it will affect me much at all. I also don’t think that it’s the “end of the world” in any way for women to have to pay for their own contraception, or for them to have to accept other forms of employer-healthcare-provided birth control.
The specific makeup of the Court didn’t matter to me with Roe, and it doesn’t matter now. If anything, I do wish that religion didn’t play a part – the old concept of state being separated from church. That would be true if the people voting that way – in favor of Hobby Lobby – were female, or other religion besides Catholic.
Doug,
Why do you assume the justices’ religion played a role in their decision? Because they’re Catholic? Of course all Catholics think and act like…well, Catholics. And we all know how all Catholics think, right? What if they were Jewish and Lutheran? Would you assume the same? Of course not because we know how all Jewish and Lutheran people think.
Also, why is it assumed by you that Dershowitz’s religion had no influence on his opinion? Well, because he’s Jewish and we know how all Jewish people think, right?
Of course you’re not bigoted Doug, liberals never are.
Reagan appointed the Roe Court? Uh, Doug you better check your history and dates. You’re off by about 8 years.
Your need to check your history aside, it was mostly white males, and one black, that gave us Roe and I have yet to hear liberals wail about “old white males” where Roe is concerned.
I was wondering, as a pro-lifer, why so many other pro-lifers seem to be against birth control being included in employee insurace packages. Birth control reduces the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortion. I understand why the court ruled the way it did. This is the law we’re talking about here. But why the freakouts, sarcasm, bad jokes about choice? This is a serious matter. What’s so funny?
Of course people are influenced by their faith. It’s a major part of their character, at the core of their being. People become conservative because of their faiths (among other things–but faith is a big one), and vote that way, and SCOTUS has a conservative majority right now. I don’t see the point of even debating it. I don’t know any person who switches off the source of what they believe to be their understanding and wisdom when it it’s time to make an important decision. It’s usually the opposite, actually.
Thomas’ color doesn’t matter because he is a conservative and votes accordingly, whereas most American Americans are liberal democrats.
I meant to say *African Americans. Sorry.
Deborah,
So why is it always assumed Catholics are influenced by their faith but people of other faiths can be totally unbiased? Why wasn’t Dershowitz not seen as influenced by his faith. Because he’s Jewish?
I was being sarcastic concerning Thomas. In fact, he and other black conservatives have come under vicious and racist attacks by, you guessed it, liberals. Apparently black people, like Catholics, are all assumed to think one way and it comes as a shock to liberals that they may not.
First of all, I don’t know why anyone would assume people’s faith has nothing to do with their decisions. Catholicism is being brought up the most here because, unlike Protestants, they are forbidden to use birth control at all and obviously don’t want to pay for it for other people. There’s just no way a Catholic judge would make somebody provide it. It’s no different than Christians opposing abortion. There is no pro-abortion support to be found there. Presidents like Bush selected his nominees for precisely that reason–he’s a conservative Christian.
I really don’t think there is such a thing at an unbiased opinion. You’d have to be a robot. We’re human. Even Sotomayer admitted that she was looking forward to bringing her unique (for SCOTUS) insight of being Latina to the table.
I don’t know a lot about Dershowitz other than he seems to be pretty liberal until you get to the subject of Israel. So, lol, yeah. I don’t know if Judaism influenced his opinion about this, because I think he’s just coming at the problem from a purely Constitutional point of reference. Much as I would like to see health care reform, it’s pretty impossible to argue that Hobby Lobby should be forced to do that, not the way the laws are now, with corporations having rights and such.
Judge for yourself if he’s biased: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/02/Dershowitz-Hobby-Lobby-Case-Insignificant-Contraception-Not-Denied-in-Win-Win
Unfortunate that anyone would have to be forced to do what I believe is the right thing, though. If is were up to many Americans, certain groups would be out of luck if it wasn’t for the law.
Deborah,
Why would you assume faith does have something to do with decisions and why only Catholics? Listen to your own bigotry. You assume because someone is Catholic they oppose birth control and don’t want to pay for someone else’s. You assume all Christians oppose abortion.
Faith may have had nothing to do with the judicial decision. On what do you base your assumption it did? How do you know how these justices feel about birth control? Did you ever ask them? Or do you just assume?
Prof. Dershowitz is Jewish so his opinion must be based on his Jewish faith, right? I mean, why would you think only Catholics are influenced by their faith?
I can’t assume that the five justices were influenced by their faith. I am not a mind reader. Wasn’t Justice Brennan Catholic? He obviously wasn’t influenced by his faith in the Roe decision.
Deborah, I don’t think most prolifers are against employers paying for birth control. Remember in this instance Hobby Lobby was opposed to specific types that worked as abortifacients. I really don’t understand what all the hysteria is all about. Is it really too much to go to CVS or wherever and buy a pack of condoms? At the city run health clinics here, where many people go for primary health care, they are free for the asking.
Why do you assume the justices’ religion played a role in their decision? Because they’re Catholic? Of course all Catholics think and act like…well, Catholics. And we all know how all Catholics think, right? What if they were Jewish and Lutheran? Would you assume the same? Of course not because we know how all Jewish and Lutheran people think.
Mary, already said that ‘Catholic,’ per se, is not the deal here. It’s certainly reasonable to think that their religion – as would be the case if they were fundamentalist Christians, say – did have an impact, though.
Lutherans – not sure how that would play out. Judaism – don’t think the same probability would be there.
—–
Also, why is it assumed by you that Dershowitz’s religion had no influence on his opinion? Well, because he’s Jewish and we know how all Jewish people think, right? Of course you’re not bigoted Doug, liberals never are.
You’re just being silly. The Justices decision, and then Dershowitz’s opinion of the “narrowness” of it are two different things. Any sensible person would acknowledge the possibility or probability of the Justices’ religion playing a part. That simply does not apply when we look at what Dershowitz said.
—–
Reagan appointed the Roe Court? Uh, Doug you better check your history and dates. You’re off by about 8 years.
Ha! Yeah – of course. Nixon… Where was my mind? : P
—–
Your need to check your history aside, it was mostly white males, and one black, that gave us Roe and I have yet to hear liberals wail about “old white males” where Roe is concerned.
I wasn’t complaining about either one. But to say that the Hobby Lobby decision is “narrow” in its judicial import, with the precedent it sets, and with the extention that the Supreme Court has already given it (the Wheaton case), is just plain silly.
Mary, to Deborah: Prof. Dershowitz is Jewish so his opinion must be based on his Jewish faith, right? I mean, why would you think only Catholics are influenced by their faith?
Mary, you’re still talking about apples and oranges. There *is* a deal with Catholics and birth control. For a lawyer to give his opinion on the broadness or narrowness of a separate court’s decision in no way brings up the same realization – there is no such connection.
Now, if Dershowitz would give his opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then one could have a reasonable assumption that his religion is a factor.
But on the scope of the Hobby Lobby decision, it’s like whether or not he likes Cherry Garcia ice cream – his being Jewish is not logically going to be a factor.
“Lutherans – not sure how that would play out”. The four drugs in the Hobby Lobby decision are seen as abortifacients by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), not contraceptives; and the LCMS agrees with the decision.
Doug,
Sorry my friend but you stepped in it and you keep sinking.
Being Jewish means you will not have a biased opinion, being Catholic means you will, oh and Fundamentalist Christian as well. So should a justice’s religious belief determine if he/she is selected or not? Also, what faith should all justices be or not be in order to guarantee a totally unbiased ruling?
As for the Roe justices..brain farcs happen to all of us. :)
Hi Eric!!
Always good to see you. My goodness, maybe justices can’t be Lutherans either. Given the stand of the LCMS, they wouldn’t have been able to make decisions on this issue that are unbiased and not faith based either.
Eric, thanks for that information.
Mary: Sorry my friend but you stepped in it and you keep sinking.
Heh, yeah – tryin’ to get out from under your apples-and-oranges argument, Mary. ; )
—–
Being Jewish means you will not have a biased opinion, being Catholic means you will, oh and Fundamentalist Christian as well.
It’s silly to presume that those 5 Justices were not influenced by their religion, as Deborah and I think any rational person would agree with. It’s also silly to presume that Dershowitz was influenced by his religion.
This is because we are talking about 2 vastly different situations – the decision of the Court itself, and then a lawyer’s opinion on the scope of the ruling.
Were those 5 Catholic guys asked about the scope of a different, historical ruling by a court, about the broadness or narrowness of it, then there too it would be silly to presume they would be influenced by their religion.
—–
So should a justice’s religious belief determine if he/she is selected or not? Also, what faith should all justices be or not be in order to guarantee a totally unbiased ruling?
Depends on who you ask. Heh – propose that all future Supreme Court justices be Muslim, and what do you think people are gonna say? ; )
I am for the separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers, very wisely, IMO, wanted this – especially after the way things had been in England – and the principle is still with us today.
In the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court said that a corporation can be religious, which really seems silly to me. Likewise, I don’t think our government should be, either.
I am not saying “Don’t elect religious people,” but I hope that all members of gov’t tend toward having their own religion as a private thing, and away from being on one side or another, in gov’t, due to their religion.
Okay, first I forget that It was Nixon who pretty much appointed the Roe court, and now I’ve turned into a “Jerry”?
Deborah: I was wondering, as a pro-lifer, why so many other pro-lifers seem to be against birth control being included in employee insurace packages. Birth control reduces the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortion.
Exactly – it’s good to bring this up every once in a while.