If that happens, Pelosi and all the liberals will have a big "I told you so" to throw at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court will soon be revisiting the issue for more clarity. They tried to draw their decision very narrowly. We will find out soon if they opened Pandora's box on this issue.

 

Wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last.

There’s been plenty of hyperbole from Democrats about the ruling. In the interest of that not polluting a discussion about an important case, I have a few points for consideration.

 

The argument made by Hobby Lobby et al. and the ruling from the Court was specifically about a religious view on women’s birth control. Alito said the logic of his majority opinion could only be applied to religious exceptions to certain types of women’s birth control and shouldn’t be construed to apply to other issues (of course, that has no authority if a future opinion did decide to rely on his logic here). So, it should be no surprise that this case has starkly pitted an issue important to women against the interests of religion.

 

Many of the proponents of the ruling have cited this narrowness as a reason people shouldn’t criticize it as opening up the “Pandora’s Box” of religious exceptions to federal regulations, yet at the same time proponents have bristled when it’s pointed out that this ruling was specific to women’s health and not for broader religious exceptions. For proponents of the ruling, do you believe Alito’s logic should extend to other religious exceptions to federal regulations? If not, why do you believe this is the only issue that warrants exception and why should women not believe they are singled out by it?

 

As I said above, the hysterical comments I’ve seen are tiresome and do a disservice to an earnest discussion of the ruling and its implications. But, the repeated notions that people who criticize the ruling are stupid or just agitating is also tiresome. And there has certainly been plenty of hyperbole coming from supporters of the ruling, like: “My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.”

Pelosi needs to go the way of the Passenger Pigeon or in her case the Dodo Bird.

What makes the Hobby Lobby decision bad is that it weakens the separation of church and state.

 

Here's another point: How many women were/are involved in the Hobby Lobby decision or implementation? I think the correct answer is zero. This reminds me of that select House panel on women's health care in which every member was a man.

 

And Republicans scratch their collective head as to why we had a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election.

 

20 points!

 

It actually reenforces the 1st Amendment that the government stays out of people's religious beliefs. A person does not have to buy an item that goes against their basic beliefs, but does not deny a woman from going out and buying said item herself. Liberty is being protected 100% in this decision.

Absolutely ridiculous. There have never been more women on the Supreme Court. Nor has there ever been more blacks. This is the most diverse Supreme Court ever.

 

What should we do, Twotoplace, establish a quota system to ensure even more diverse, loony left wing members on the court?

Mitch Black Justices don't count as Black if they are Conservatives...didn't you know that?

Old radical wanna-be Nanc needs to learn to 'compromise'.

Ah, government mandates on business for social agenda. Problems galore - and a -2.9% GDP in Q1.

I feel this will have impact far beyond the polls as more and more businesses are exploring this for their own actions.

 

And that is a good thing.

 

Government mandates on business for arbitrary reasons and agendas are bad.

It actually reenforces the 1st Amendment that the government stays out of people's religious beliefs. A person does not have to buy an item that goes against their basic beliefs, but does not deny a woman from going out and buying said item herself. Liberty is being protected 100% in this decision.

Your religious beliefs end where my rights as a citizen begin. "Render unto Caesar ..." Unfortunately, the right wing of the high court decided to legislate from the bench again.

 

The end result, of course, is that some female employees will be forced into the equivalent of a pay cut in order to address the health needs that they have determined with their doctor.

 

And how many men will be required to do same?

What do doctors and nurses have to say about Hobby Lobby? The following from a story on the reaction to the ruling:

 

"The 5-4 decision was immediately criticized by the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association (PDF), the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for allowing employers to meddle in the exam room.

The decision “intrudes on the patient-physician relationship and will make it more difficult for many women to make their own personal medical decisions,” said Dr. Robert Wah, president of the AMA. “We encourage the administration to provide alternative pathways to secure coverage for patients unable to obtain these services as a result of the court's ruling.”

 

Each of the groups urged officials in Washington to work quickly to restore coverage options for all insured women, saying that limiting insurance coverage would force women to take additional steps or pay out of pocket for birth control—which affects low-income women in particular."

There’s been plenty of hyperbole from Democrats about the ruling. In the interest of that not polluting a discussion about an important case, I have a few points for consideration.

 

The argument made by Hobby Lobby et al. and the ruling from the Court was specifically about a religious view on women’s birth control. Alito said the logic of his majority opinion could only be applied to religious exceptions to certain types of women’s birth control and shouldn’t be construed to apply to other issues (of course, that has no authority if a future opinion did decide to rely on his logic here). So, it should be no surprise that this case has starkly pitted an issue important to women against the interests of religion.

 

Many of the proponents of the ruling have cited this narrowness as a reason people shouldn’t criticize it as opening up the “Pandora’s Box” of religious exceptions to federal regulations, yet at the same time proponents have bristled when it’s pointed out that this ruling was specific to women’s health and not for broader religious exceptions. For proponents of the ruling, do you believe Alito’s logic should extend to other religious exceptions to federal regulations? If not, why do you believe this is the only issue that warrants exception and why should women not believe they are singled out by it?

 

As I said above, the hysterical comments I’ve seen are tiresome and do a disservice to an earnest discussion of the ruling and its implications. But, the repeated notions that people who criticize the ruling are stupid or just agitating is also tiresome. And there has certainly been plenty of hyperbole coming from supporters of the ruling, like: “My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.”

 

I'll bite.

 

Because they are?

What do doctors and nurses have to say about Hobby Lobby? The following from a story on the reaction to the ruling:

 

"The 5-4 decision was immediately criticized by the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association (PDF), the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for allowing employers to meddle in the exam room.

The decision “intrudes on the patient-physician relationship and will make it more difficult for many women to make their own personal medical decisions,” said Dr. Robert Wah, president of the AMA. “We encourage the administration to provide alternative pathways to secure coverage for patients unable to obtain these services as a result of the court's ruling.”

 

Each of the groups urged officials in Washington to work quickly to restore coverage options for all insured women, saying that limiting insurance coverage would force women to take additional steps or pay out of pocket for birth control—which affects low-income women in particular."

 

Can you say class action?

What makes the Hobby Lobby decision bad is that it weakens the separation of church and state.

 

Here's another point: How many women were/are involved in the Hobby Lobby decision or implementation? I think the correct answer is zero. This reminds me of that select House panel on women's health care in which every member was a man.

 

And Republicans scratch their collective head as to why we had a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election.

20 points!

 

Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the gap will be if, say, a woman runs in 2016?

 

Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the gap will be if, say, a woman runs in 2016?

 

Do women like Hillary? I'm sure someone will post a poll that says they do...but I saw on CNN a few weeks ago a Dem political guy saying that she isn't wowing American female voters.

Can you say class action?

 

Against who?