Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

The democrat reaction to the Supreme Court decision. . .

Washington, DC – DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued the following statement today on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

“I am disappointed and deeply concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision today in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans have gained access to preventive services without out-of-pocket costs, including birth control. However, this decision takes money out of the pockets of women and their families and allows for-profit employers to deny access to certain health care benefits based on their personal beliefs. Nearly sixty percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning.

www.democrats.org...

Oh my god!

Now if people want to have sex, they might have to pay for their own contraceptives!

This is MADNESS!

When is the government going to pay for my toothpaste?

Why do I have to pay out-of-pocket for that???

a reply to: beezzer

This is MADNESS!

Yeah it is madness!

They are condemning a big bad corporation(hobby lobby)

While pushing for BIG PHARMA and other corporate products at the same time.

LOL.

a reply to: Destinyone

True. It is Hobby Lobby's right to support free abortions in China and oppress working american women.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Destinyone

True. It is Hobby Lobby's right to support free abortions in China and oppress working american women.

And the point is ?

Hobby Lobby critics support free abortions here in the good ole US of A.

a reply to: Bone75

So now I'm left wondering why the new study had no bearing on this case. Was there a problem with the study?

Because real science and medicine have nothing to do with this case. This all about the bogus science that the pro-life community is pushing in an attempt to legitimize their superstitious beliefs about a woman's place and purpose.

a reply to: neo96

family planning as far as I know goes according to income and I've been one that knows danged well how it feels to have that income too high and yet not high enough to afford to life!
For some women this might just take something away from them that their troubled budgets might have grown quite accustomed to -- insurance coverage of birth control!

so you say that now after they pay an even higher premium for the insurance that they've been enjoying all along they should also pay more!! or go without sex!!
Why should they have to?? What makes their medical need any different than that of a person who has eaten himself into type 2 diabetes? They could have enjoyed the sweets less also! Why do I need to pay for his medication?

a reply to: neo96

Tell a man that.

a reply to: macman

Businesses do not have the same private property rights that residences do.

a reply to: beezzer

Debbie Wasserman Schultz ... no surprise there. She's a hoot. Reminds me of a far left version of Sara Palin. Some rainy day Google up 'Debbie Wasserman Schultz lies' and then strap in for a bumpy ride.

originally posted by: MOMof3
It is Hobby Lobby's right to support free abortions in China and oppress working american women.

Hobby Lobby isn't 'oppressing working American women'. However, the far left is attempting to oppress religious people and deny them their Constitutional rights.

a reply to: beezzer

Nearly sixty percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning.

I see that the DNC is just as clueless as some of the posters in this thread.

HOBBY LOBBY PROVIDES CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE UNDER THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES. NO HOBBY LOBBY EMPLOYEE IS BEING DENIED BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE.

Given that the four, out of twenty, options that Hobby Lobby didn't want to fund are all intended to terminate a pregnancy or prevent implantation of an embryo, they ARE obviously "family planning" medications.

Oh, Alito! You freaking hypocrite!

In a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate and does not mean companies would necessarily succeed if they made similar claims to other insurance requirements, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions.

Read more: www.chicagotribune.com...

So, only Christians can use this ruling. Other religions that believe in other things won't be successful if they take their cases to the SC...

Ginsburg's Dissent:

"In a decision of startling breadth, the court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law ... they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," she wrote.

Welcome to the Christian version of Sharia Law!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dawnstar

If a women knows that a pregnancy would be disastrous to her heath t

Then it would stand to reason to refrain from having sex then.

Perhaps she should assist her husband in procuring a concubine to insure he still gets his marital due.

a reply to: neo96

The Planned Parenthood that keeps getting clinics shut down because SOME evangelicals cry hard enough?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Oh, Alito! You freaking hypocrite!

True.

Welcome to the Christian version of Sharia Law!

Hyperbole.

a reply to: Kali74

Seems that this ruling is leading to exactly how the Country was created.

Oh, and business do have rights. A person can be removed from a business, transactions can be denied and there it ownership.


You Progressives are a funny bunch.

Always with the "It's different" approach to life.

It is seriously time to start burning bras again.

IMO these last 2 SC decisions are a direct assault on women.

originally posted by: windword

Because real science and medicine have nothing to do with this case. This all about the bogus science that the pro-life community is pushing in an attempt to legitimize their superstitious beliefs about a woman's place and purpose.

Or perhaps the findings of the latest study were falsified to push a political agenda?

a reply to: Destinyone
It's always trumpeted as "a very NARROW and extremely limited ruling" in the liberal media (MSNBC), when the SCOTUS ruling goes against Obama policy.
Unlike SCOTUS' Obamacare ruling, where liberal media trumpeted the (ALSO 5-4) decision as "law of the land".

a reply to: FlyersFan

So, having to purchase your own contraceptive is oppression.

That is about the most moronic thing I have heard yet.


My work oppresses me because it won't pay for "insert what ever".