Hey, remember when Dems supported Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Neither do they!

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Hey, remember when Dems supported Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Neither do they!




If you even had a shadow of a doubt about the dangerous way in which the media misinforms the public, the Associated Press went out of its way on Wednesday to put those doubts to rest




Focused on the mission of keeping the public up to date on events, the AP broke a report from the U.S. Senate on Wednesday where Democrats had attempted to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.


ETA forgot this link:

Associated Press: Jerk Republicans block ‘free contraception

Dems fail in attempt to reverse HL ruling



WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans have blocked a bill aimed at restoring free contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies that object on religious grounds. Read more: www.wjla.com... Pct


They did ?



To recap, the majority of Supreme Court justices found that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, implemented as part of a regulatory measure and not passed by Congress, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court found that closely held firms who prove religious objections to the mandate can refuse to provide certain contraceptive methods as part of their employees’ health coverage.


The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion.


en.wikipedia.org...

Read it and weep progressives.

H.R. 1308

The House:


Passed House May 11, 1993 It was by voice vote so no record of individual votes was made.


www.govtrack.us...

The Senate:

www.govtrack.us...

52 Democrats 45 Republicans with 3 'Nays'.

Take a good look at those Senate votes.

Lots of names will sound familiar.

Biden,Feinstein,Dodd, REID, etc.

So basically 'some' people were FOR religious freedom before they were AGAINST it.

The Hobby Lobby decision is much to do about nothing.

But that isn't going to stop the progressive's from LYING about it.
edit on 16-7-2014 by neo96 because: Forgot Link




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Hey remember when right wing nuts didint foam to the mouth and use made up facts to scare people in believing in there way or the highway.

Neo get ready to vote for jeb bush, and good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Whoa! You mean to tell me politicians are liars and hypocrites? No #ing way!!!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The RFRA is made up ?

Really ?



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I'm sure that in 1993, back before the SCOTUS declared corporations people with religious freedom, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act seemed perfectly reasonable. Although it was never necessary in the first place; as our religious freedom is already Constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, with the direction the SCOTUS has forced us in with the Citizens United & Hobby Lobby decisions, it is abundantly clear that the recent SCOTUS decision is in conflict with the original spirit and intent of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I'm certain that we have all, at some point in time, stood behind something but distanced ourselves from it when it became tainted from outside interference.

I see absolutely zero hypocrisy with Democrats that formerly approved of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now distancing themselves from it. It's a bastardized law thanks to the worst SCOTUS in the history of America.
edit on 16-7-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The right wing made up outrage about every little thing they think is wrong lol, but hey you guys next savior is on is way, he will make sure romneycare is still there, immigration reform wont be passed, fear of gun behing taken away stays, and all that jazz.


I know i know you never voted for bush your a real amerikain right.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

1993 wasn't an election year.

2014 is. Progressive leftists would sell their own children into slavery if it got them an additional vote.

They count on the short memories of their constituents.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace




I'm sure that in 1993, back before the SCOTUS declared corporations people with religious freedom, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act seemed perfectly reasonable


Nice red herring !

Really !

Even read the Citizen United Ruling ?



The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.


en.wikipedia.org...

Unions are 'people' too.

Beside's that 'personification' is the reason why people get to sue them, and what not.




I see absolutely zero hypocrisy with Democrats that formerly approved of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now distancing themselves from it


See no 'hypocrisy' ?

Even bother reading this ?



Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion e


www.govtrack.us...



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Thanks for the political trolling there, and throwing everything including the kitchen sink NOT to talk about the topic.

Which can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Your political heroes are the same people that you seem to dislike so much, but yea keep on behing outraged by the left while the right is asleep and keeps on letting obama and is cronies steal the usa blind.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Yeah they do as the first link in the thread:




#ReadyForHillary RT @sahilkapur If Dems hadn't passed RFRA in 1993, Hobby Lobby would've had no case.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You know the cute part, is hobby has shares in medical companys that make contraception pills, its been pointed out on ats already a few times.

But yea its outrageous that politicians do what they do best lie to get elected.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The cute part is the people who make those decisions are called advisors.

Which pretty much EVERYONE who invests has.

IF the Greens were 'Buffet's' maybe that dog would hunt.
edit on 16-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Great reply neo, so your ok with hobby lobby crying to the moon about covering there employees on certain things because its againts there religious beliefs, but its ok to make money off the same evil pill.


Wheres your outrage.
edit on 16-7-2014 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It's hardly the first time something was created for positive benefits, then found later it could be mis-used as a loophole for abuse.

Laws are always being made to close up loopholes someone found and mis-used for their benefit.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
" Hey, remember when Dems supported Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Neither do they! "

Next we'll be hearing how the Progressives want to change the meaning of ....

"hypocritic" oath





posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 16-7-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The SCOTUS ruling has really been misunderstood. If the government follows the majority's suggestion to extend the current accommodations for non-profit religious organizations to companies like Hobby Lobby, then the net effect on women will be zero. They will get the procedures they want, and their insurance company will pick up the tab.

Don't believe it? Here's the the words from the decision itself:




In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.


And if you don't follow that. The majority makes it even clearer here:




The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.


This is a very narrow decision that attempts to respect the religious liberty of private, closely-held companies without impacting women's health.

It has been falsely presented by both sides to suggest it's something it's not. It's pretty clear the insurance companies are behind all the rhetoric. They are the ones who will see the real change. And though as SCOTUS suggests it probably won't provide a net burden, they don't want any burden. Net, gross, otherwise.
edit on 16-7-2014 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Where is all that 'outrage' about goverment employees, and union pensioners that are investing in BIG OIL, and Fossil Fuels, and Banks ?

LOL.

Because they all do, and wanna know why ?

That is where the money is.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace


I'm sure that in 1993, back before the SCOTUS declared corporations people with religious freedom


Happened long time ago....

Corporate personhood

choke & gag in play.








new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join