Posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:29 AM PDT by george76
In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.
Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, and Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Not to mention, contraception insurance buys into the Obama regime’s bogus definition of what insurance is. That would be like asking auto insurance to cover paying for gas for your car. Insurance by definition can’t cover products that everybody on the plan uses all the time. There’s no such thing as a risk pool when everybody’s buying something all the time.
5-4, not surprised. Party line vote
A huge win for the First Amendment!
Wow! We actually win one for a change.
No rejoicing on this. Alto said Obama should make the insurers offer birth control at no charge like he is now doing for nonprofits. Health coverage is not free so who is paying for it? Hint...taxpayers.
The SC just played a shell game. I have greater respect for Ginsburg on this one. She was truthful in her dissent.
Read the decision and see if you rejoice.
My fellow conservative FReepers,
The U.S. Supreme Court made history today. I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
This is a MAJOR DEFEAT for the abortion industry and liberals who have tried to argue that life only begins at birth.
They did no such thing. They only agreed that such a belief should exempt its holders from being forced to violate it. Where do you see your pronouncement in the ruling?
Furthermore they basically ruled it was ok to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.
Oh geeze.
Ok, then that would explain Ginzzyburg’s frothing attack in her dissent. She knows the broader issue will come up too.
Thanks for the Picture CAWW, helps put it in prospective , the USA tried to take away this great couples religious freedom using every resource available including a bottomless chest of money and lawyers. What a brave couple.
That didn't happen.
You are wrong in your take. Completely wrong. The plaintiffs are happy, the conservative legal groups are all happy.
I did not say those groups were unhappy did I? But I am right. Read the decision or read a good summary of it.
I was trying to say, diplomatically, that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.
You have force the issue, so I will say it directly: YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
FreedomNotSafety,
You apparently misread what I posted. I did not write that the majority proclaimed that they themselves believe that life begins at conception.
Of course, the majority agreed with the plaintiff’s *argument*, otherwise the plaintiffs would have lost!
The main thrust of this case was that the plaintiffs *argued* that:
Abortifacients cause abortion which results in the death of a living fetus (= murder), which in their firmly held religious belief is a sin. Therefore, to force them to pay for insurance that provides abortifacients goes against their religious belief and violates their freedom of religion.
Five justices DID agree and decided in their favor!
btt
True that.
You posted that "the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!"
No, I didn't. You said:
I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!The justices did not agree with their argument that life begins at conception. They agreed with their argument that the HHS contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
You said nothing about abortifacients or insurance in your first post. Your argument has now changed and is factually correct.
You wrote:
“The U.S. Supreme Court made history today. I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!”
What did I misunderstand? You say in this post that a majority of the SC agree that life begins at conception.
I will state again that the SC made no such declaration.
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.