Posted on 06/29/2014 9:24:05 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The Supreme Court won't strike down Obamacare's contraception mandate, but a ruling for the law's challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.
The justices are set to rule any day now in a challenge to the birth-control mandate, and any decision against the policy would have ripple effects far beyond the two companies that filed this lawsuit. Just how far, however, depends on how broadly the Court rules—and it has plenty of options.
No matter what happens, the Court won't strike down the entire mandate. The two companies that brought their challenge to the Supreme Court—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties—haven't asked the justices to ax the entire policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Interesting opinion from an agnostic. May ask why you feel that way? (Why you fear loss of religious freedoms)
Expect a sane ruling from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in concurrance with a watered down, specified go ahead from the others.
That or they declare you have no religious freedoms.
I’m also an agnostic and I agree with him. It’s a personal freedom issue.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As mentioned in related threads, what activist justices don't want anybody to know concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare is the following. With the exception of the federal entities indicated by the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes.
That is a great article, thanks for posting.
I would point out that the list of companies currently suing is about the ENTIRE list of companies that would actually have not provided free birth control. Virtually EVERY employer is providing birth control, and has been for the last decade.
This entire fight while important is pretty much one big distraction from the big picture, meaning we needed to win, but it’s like the aliens are taking over the world, and you manage to save a theater full of people. Cool, but a billion people died while you were at it.
And remember, “free” birth control costs the company about $4 a month per woman more than requiring the women to pay a deductible.
The thing I regret the most is that none of the cases is about an INDIVIDUAL being allowed to OPT OUT of abortion/birth control coverage in their own insurance.
I have always argued that THIS is the real damage to personal religious liberty — that Obamacare forces individuals who have a moral opposition to birth control to still pay for insurance that provides it for free.
If we really cared about conscience, we’d allow people to opt out of their abortion and birth control coverage, with a small return (it would be very small as this coverage is essentially free anyway) in premiums.
I’d actually argue that everything on the list of “preventative” crap should be a menu for you to choose from, except what I really mean is that people should be allowed to contract for their own insurance with a company that covers what the insurance and purchaser agree to, without interference from government. That will never happen, it wasn’t that way before when employers got to choose your insurance.
That is great, if you now think that we can find a million people who agree with that with such vigor that they are willing to raise up arms and actually go to war with the government.
Because unfortunately in the real world, the Supreme Court has said it’s all good, and there’s no chance we’re replacing those people with justices that are going to change that — even when we DO replace justices, we end up with people like Roberts.
It is simply much easier for liberals, because it appears most people trained as lawyers have a tendency to end up being dictatorial a*sholes who love power. Who would have thought it?
The Framers were well acquainted with man's tendency to accumulate power. It is why they divided authority between the states and the government they created.
Undivided power always ends up in undivided tyranny.
Making declarative statements like this, before the event, are the reason egg is on some faces.
No writer knows what in the hell the SCOTUS will do about anything, because NO ONE predicted that obamacare would be ruled constitutional, because the penalty is really a tax...oh yeah.
I don't know what these 9 judges in black robes will do, I pray for the Christian outcome.
As a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the Constitution's checks and balances, please consider the following. Constitutionally ignorant voters have missed a good number of opportunities to undo the damage that Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR had done to the Supreme Court with respect to nominating activist majority justices in the 1930s and 40s.
More specifically, at any election cycle, all that conservatives have needed to do is to elect 2/3 conservative majority control of the Senate and also majority control of the House of Representatives. Then Congress would have been able to exercise its full power to impeach and remove activist justices, something that this country hasn't seen to my knowledge (corrections welcome), but is long overdue.
In other words, an arugably even worse enemy of the country than corrupt justices has been low-information, apathetic voters imo.
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.