all 70 comments

[–]gpia7rConstitutionalist[S] 49 ポイント50 ポイント

I compiled a quick list of all the women that are now banned from buying birth control:

[–]liatris 15 ポイント16 ポイント

I was looking through the topic thread on /r/politics and pretty much every post was equating this decision with forbidding women from buying birth control. It's just bizarre how brainwashed these people are.

[–]WhirledWorldFeminist Conservative 3 ポイント4 ポイント

In reality, HHS will probably just direct the government to subsidize the contraceptives (just like they do with non-profits making the religious objection).

This is such a tame opinion, yet people will still predict apocalypse.

[–]gpia7rConstitutionalist[S] 21 ポイント22 ポイント

Another pro-freedom SCOTUS decision.

[–]NolanChancellor 10 ポイント11 ポイント

What is truly scary is that both of these were 5-4 rulings.

Framers spin in their graves once again.

[–]BagOnutsFairTax Advocate 19 ポイント20 ポイント

This is great news! The dissenting Justices, however, should be ashamed that they put their political agendas ahead of protecting the rights and liberty of the people.

[–]ZaknAoSHQ Moron 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Hahahahaha!

I'll have what he is having. Thanks

[–]BagOnutsFairTax Advocate 11 ポイント12 ポイント

What's so funny about upholding the first amendment?

[–]ZaknAoSHQ Moron 16 ポイント17 ポイント

No. That you think Lefties would EVER put ANYTHING above thier political agenda. That is what was funny.

[–]BagOnutsFairTax Advocate 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Ooh... I mistook your comment as mocking my disapproval of the dissenting Justices. My mistake!

[–]CarolinaPunkEsse Quam Videri 1 ポイント2 ポイント

thumbs up to the flair.

[–]NDIrish27 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It's incredible how this is plastered all over /r/politics, but there's not a single mention of Obama continuing to try and illegally issue executive orders every time he doesn't like something Congress does. That place may as well be renamed /r/liberallapdogs

[–]dimokoCentrist 8 ポイント9 ポイント

make sure to correct people who just say "contraception"

hobby lobby didnt want to pay for the morning after pill...but they willingly pay for birth control...

i'm tired of these facts being reported wrong... hobby lobby isnt amish, they just dont want the morning after pill.

they refuse to cover 4 out of 20 birth control methods.

i'm glad the supreme court made the right decision

[–]gpia7rConstitutionalist[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Exactly. I agree this particular headline isn't accurate.

[–]DonVito1950 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Brace yourselves! The flood of liberal tears is coming!

[–]gpia7rConstitutionalist[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Good. I needed more lube for my guns.

[–]Porkopolis12 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I think the liberals are over reacting. Once this dies down, they'll realize the incredibly narrow scope of this case and move on to more pertinent issues. I am an optimist.

[–]YamiHarrison 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I need to get my bottles out to collect them, so I may take a bath in it tonight while reading Ayn Rand and eating Chick Fil-A

[–]BravesFam 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I think it is important to point out, and will certainly be ignored by the media, that the Greens supported 16 of 20 forms of contraception. Their only objections were to contraception that can lead to abortions such as the morning after pill.

This is a HUGE difference. They aren't anti-woman. They are anti-baby killing.

[–]YamiHarrison 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I don't care about this issue, but the Obama tears it will create is delicious.

[–]erockarmy 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Headline is misleading, or rather AP's headline is misleading. Hobby Lobby already provides contraception under insurance plans. Their objection is to providing abortifacients which is contraception after the fact.

[–]gpia7rConstitutionalist[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント

You're correct. This was the earliest headline, and I hope it's corrected.

[–]mastaxn 5 ポイント6 ポイント

The comments on these stories in /r/politics are mind-boggling. They're in meltdown mode over there.

[–]BigMrC 4 ポイント5 ポイント

They're already in here downvoting like mad.

[–]YamiHarrison 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Time to audit the Supreme Court I imagine!

Honestly I don't care about this issue one way or the other, but am happy that if you look at all the Supreme Courts rulings (left or right leaning) the arguments they give for them always based in rational constitutionality and law, not emotion and political agenda. For instance in his statements you can tell John Roberts personally disagreed with the Cell Phone search warrant ruling, but still voted for it anyway because he saw it as constitutional necessity. The Court is really the last bastion of effective American governance, and now they're the defenders of the constitution for emotion-driven liberal ideologues.

[–]symkoReagan Conservative -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Those Proggy tears were delicious!

[–]Zig9Libertarian Republican 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Two amazing rulings today. The supreme court has been pretty good with everything recently, except the Areo case.

[–]Stink-Finger 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I am loving the apoplexy over at the DU

[–]WhirledWorldFeminist Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

[–][deleted]

[deleted]

    [–]NDIrish27 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    All this is is a rectification of a law that had no legal basis, constitutional or otherwise, to be passed in the first place. I don't get why liberals are freaking out. Birth control is not essential. It is not at the same level as covering dental or general practitioner visits or hospital bills. The fact that some people can't seem to understand that absolutely blows my mind.

    [–]Speedson -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    do the people who support this decision really think that muslim employers should be allowed to deny coverage to people who see doctors of the opposite sex? should jews be allowed to deny coverage on the sabbath? health insurance is earned compensation, why should my employer get to decide how that compensation is spent? should they be allowed to decide what my paycheck can be spent on as well? utter nonsense

    [–]turnpikenorth 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    Did you really just ask why your employer should decide how you are compensated?

    [–]disco_stewie 8 ポイント9 ポイント

    You're using a slippery slope logical fallacy. This case is specific in scope, in that companies who have religious owners, who have convictions about specific healthcare mandates that the ACA forces them to do.

    I haven't read the 2000 page monstrosity that is the ACA but I do not believe that there is any provision in the law that mandates that employers must force people to see doctors of the opposite sex or must allow people to see doctors on the sabbath. If the law was written that way, I would expect that those companies would file a similar lawsuit that Hobby Lobby, et al did.

    The case isn't about denying coverage; it's about limiting what the healthcare insurance covers, insurance that you have the option to enroll. Remember you can still get individual coverage through the exchange.

    EVERY COMPANY NEGOTIATES WITH HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COVER OR NOT COVER SOMETHING. Whether it's the deductible, the classification of drugs (e.g. what is a Tier 1 drug and thus the co-pay is higher), surgeries, etc.

    The ACA and this case was about the specific mandate inserted by democrats to force companies to cover a classification of drugs. That was the issue.

    This did not prevent the employees of Hobby Lobby of purchasing contraceptives. It simply meant that the employees paid for the drugs themselves. I don't understand why people seem to be missing this key point.

    [–]bernie16wb 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    So a company run by a Scientologist gets to refuse to pay for any mental health care since they don't believe in it?

    How about a company run by someone who truly and deeply believes that holistic healing is the only medicine that works and doesn't want to pay for modern healthcare?

    Or what about blood transfusions or transplants, there's several religions that don't agree with those. Can they not pay for that?

    [–]apackofmonkeys 4 ポイント5 ポイント

    Yes, yes, and yes. Don't work for those companies and don't buy their products if you don't like their benefits or lack thereof.

    [–]student_of_yoshi 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    It would suck if I was forced to work for any of those companies.

    Good thing I'm not.

    [–]mastaxn 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Do those employees have the option to buy their insurance from the exchange? Problem solved.

    [–]TK-85[🍰] 13 ポイント14 ポイント

    I think if enough employees don't like their work conditions, they can and should strike, instead of getting big brother government to fight their battles and violate the Constitution at the same time.

    [–]DonVito1950 9 ポイント10 ポイント

    Or you know....quit.

    [–]Expiscor 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    And then work where? It's not very easy to get a job.

    [–]CleverFunnyName 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    Isn't this an argument for unions? What sub am I in?

    [–]Speedson -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    thats not really an answer to any of my questions.

    [–]liatris 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Why do you think you have a right to use the power of the government to force your employers to ignore their religious beliefs to suit you? If you don't like the terms of your employment go some where else to work if you can find a job.

    [–]kks1236Natural Rights Conservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント

    Yeah it is, bud. Basically, he is saying that the employers can impose certain work conditions, to a degree, as they see fit and it's the employee's job to either strike against the business or quit. The government has no role in this process, nor should it.

    [–]YOLOBELLY -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    I figure for the commenter that one) morning after pill is a religious choice, a ritual if you like. Two) SCOTUS has violated the constitution, three) rights mean that government is responsible for ensuring both (ease of) access and support/protection for those rights. All leading to the above all premise that we are not free agents, are sociologically determined and without mobility in so far as the government puts out rulings like this. Yeah...

    [–]TK-85[🍰] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    It does actually. If enough employees have a problem with their Muslim employer forbidding their employees from seeing an opposite sex doctor (which probably has nothing to do with Islam) then the employees can strike until their employer stops, or choose a different company to work for.

    [–]BagOnutsFairTax Advocate 5 ポイント6 ポイント

    Health insurance is a benefit, not earned compensation. That's like saying a company car is earned compensation and they can't tell you how to use it....

    No one is arguing that employes shouldn't be able to obtain or use abortifacients at their own expense. Employers just shouldn't be required to pay for a drug that is not medically necessary and violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

    [–]robotoverlordzReagan Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    health insurance is earned compensation

    Health insurance is a benefit, over and above remuneration. It is not an entitlement. No one has a right to health insurance or health care. So if, for whatever reason, an employer wants to provide a very limited health insurance plan (or no plan at all), it is its right to do so.

    [–]BigMrC 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    Are you 16?

    [–]marcopolo22Leadership Institute 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    The essential assumption I think you might be making is that companies should be forced to pay for all healthcare needs of an employee. Most of us here believe that every company should be allowed the freedom to offer whatever level of health coverage they want, or lack thereof. The government is trying to manipulate these decisions which should be made between the employers and employees. If you're upset that a Muslim-owned company doesn't allow you to see doctors of another gender, don't work for that company.

    [–]UmbrellaResearchCorp -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    Sit on it and spin, liberal filth............

    [–]ayrnieu -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    A good start. How about striking mandatory substance abuse coverage, next?

    [–]CarolinaPunkEsse Quam Videri 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    yo its your cake day.

    [–]TK-85[🍰] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Thanks.

    [–]Rhawk187 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    I'm curious why it's always contraception? Can Jehovah's Witness based companies refuse to pay for policies that cover blood transfusions/organ transplants?

    [–]CarolinaPunkEsse Quam Videri 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    No, this case is far more complicated than you would assume and as such far more narrow. go to scotusblog and check out there summary when they have it.