FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/30/2014 2:16:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Contrary to what you may have read in less enlightened corners of the Internet, the Supreme Court did not deny access to contraception to anyone. Rather, it ruled today that if the owners of a closely held company have religious objections to providing contraceptives or abortifacients in their insurance policies, the Obama administration cannot force them to do it.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) trumps the administration’s regulations. The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Five justices of the Court ruled that closely held companies can be religious objectors protected by the law, and that the government can indeed make contraception more affordable without coercing these companies.
Just as notable is what the Supreme Court’s ruling did not do. Women who work for the plaintiffs, Hobby Lobby, remain able to use their employer-provided insurance coverage to finance the most popular forms of contraception. They remain free to use their wages to finance the ones Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients to which Hobby Lobby objects. Congress remains free to enact a new law that requires employers to cover abortifacients and contraceptives and explicitly rules out any RFRA exemptions. It remains free, for that matter, to repeal RFRA altogether. The ruling does not even make it clear whether the Little Sisters of the Poor will, in the end, remain free from the requirement that they authorize another party to provide contraceptive coverage. That question will be answered in a different case. The Court’s ruling today, in short, is an extremely limited one. It does not even restore the full scope of freedom employers had in these matters as recently as 2012. Nobody then, you may recall, was agitated over the fact that throughout the entire course of American history up to that point, their supposed “rights” to free contraceptive coverage from employers had been continuously violated.
It can be safely predicted that any change in birth rates and rates of contraceptive use based on this ruling will be undetectable. All that has changed is that employers are a little freer to refuse to engage in conduct they consider religiously objectionable. That this increase in freedom makes some people so very upset tells us more about them than about the Court’s ruling.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It’s the hysteria of the misinformed MSM that’s braying.
And let me emphasize.... If you are a taxpayer, regardless of whether or not you are a devout Evangelical or Catholic, YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING for abortions whether you like it or not.
And let me emphasize.... If you are a taxpayer, regardless of whether or not you are a devout Evangelical or Catholic, YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING for abortions whether you like it or not.
This is the sad truth.
Freepers have you been on Supreme Court twitter feeds Libs are going NUTS
So funny LMAO
Don’t be silly, dears. If you have to pay for something you want, you’ve been “denied access.” That’s the official government definition, for now.
I look at it this way:
My Federal income taxes contribute to my father’s Navy pension or my daughter’s Coast Guard salary.
My State income taxes pave roads.
My county taxes go to the Sheriff’s department.
Good point. Thanks.
I want an Alfa Romeo. I don’t have one for free. I have been denied access.
It’s all fungible, so why not mentally direct it where you like? Our Federal income tax is probably less than what it cost to support our daughter when she lived at home ;-), and it’s much less than her Coast Guard salary.
You need to organize a community of others who have been denied access to Alfa Romeos and make sure you get your rights!!!
I have a 1984 Mazda RX-7, mint condition except for that brake light thing and the “Will it start?” issue ...
It would worry me if Sandra Fluke was leading any march on Washington. The response would be overwhelming.
I am not too worried about this as she is still shacked up at the NoTell Motel having sex all day long...
The hysteria is off the charts!
Unlike yourself that is still in original mint-condition? :)
I was 17 in 1984, when my father bought this car. Today, I have some minor electrical issues ... but I’m better at starting in the morning than I was at 17!
Aw, come on, the morons are being told what to believe and believe they will.
The only reason the progressives and the media hate religion is because they think they’re being displaced by God.
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.