It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: adjensen
As neither this decision nor the actions of Hobby Lobby prevent anyone from access to birth control, providing that they pay for it themselves, there is nothing notable about this decision, apart from fear mongers like the president of Planned Parenthood, who has been ranting that this is some apocalyptic attack on women.
originally posted by: windword
You seem to support Hobby Lobby's rights when they are being violated, but not when their female employees rights are being violated.
That sir is a blatant, out right , pure lie.
Show us all, in the actual ruling, not some talking point from MSNBC, where it states this.
You can not, because the exemption was very narrow and only pertained to the 4 specific drugs they objected to.
This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs
Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: macman
The US already practices socialism. Might as well promote the general welfare too.
Access to birth control is vital for the health of this country.
You can say it all you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I have cited 3x times now.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment.
1. If, as the Court of Appeals held, the statute under which appellee was convicted is not a health measure, appellee may not be prevented, because he was not an authorized distributor, from attacking the statute in its alleged discriminatory application to potential distributees. Appellee, furthermore, has standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives because their ability to obtain them will be materially impaired by enforcement of the statute. Cf. Griswold, supra; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249. Pp. 405 U. S. 443-446.
2. By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 405 U. S. 446-455.
There is no mythological "right to birth control" -- laws preventing access to birth control were overturned on the basis of privacy and equal protection.
Birth control and abortion are natural human rights, endowed upon us by our creator.
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Gryphon66
you've over-analyzed this, gryph....
nobody's limited anything....you can still have these things....you just can't make that specific employer pay for them...
why is this so hard to grasp? and why are you so irate over it?