Supreme Court Supports Employers’ Religious Rights in Contraception, Teacher Employment

By | July 9, 2020

  • July 9, 2020 at 7:26 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 24

    “Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed to a government estimate that between 70,500 and 126,400 women would immediately lose access to free contraception. “This court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets,” Ginsburg wrote.”

    …………………

    Health care is not a right, nor is free contraception using pharmaceuticals. Fortunately, one form of contraception IS free; i.e. abstinence. So, Ginsburg is wrong. There is NO reason to fund contraceptives when one basic form is FREE.

    • July 9, 2020 at 2:14 pm
      Reason says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 14

      You’re correct, health care is not a right…in America…mostly because of ancient schools of thought like this.

      • July 9, 2020 at 4:06 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 12

        Don’t you love arguments from the Left: “you are a bad person. you are ancient. I am modern.”

        Why is it always a personal attack?

        • July 9, 2020 at 9:40 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 13

          The Left almost always replies to those with whom they disagree with a personal attack because when they try to debate politely, they are faced with a dearth of facts and support for their positions.

          When it isn’t a personal attack, it involves deflection to another subject or a Straw Man Argument that can be criticized, yet which wasn’t part of the original discussion.

          Ancient schools of thought are widely held because they stood the test of time. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution enables citizens to obtain insurance, and laws enable anyone to obtain health care – but they are still obligated to pay for it, whether they can or not.

          • July 13, 2020 at 12:44 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 6

            LOL and in your world everyone on the left is a Soros funded bot, Polar. Your hypocrisy and dishonesty is on display for all to see.

  • July 9, 2020 at 8:12 am
    Stush says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 33
    Thumb down 4

    I am amazed that this is even an issue. This is about mandated coverage and who is paying for it. when employers restrict coverage, why can’t employees pay for it as an endorsement to the policy? I can’t imagine it would be that expensive. My insurance is paid in part by me and part by my employer. I pay a larger share of my coverage today than I used to, with higher deductibles etc. so why can’t contraception be OFFERED but funded by the party of the second part instead of the first? That way the employer won’t have to worry about paying for contraceptionor abortion and the employee won’t have to be denied coverage if they want it. That would avoid this dispute altogether. Adjust the coverage so that the mandate can be satisfied without litigation.

    • July 15, 2020 at 11:10 am
      Rational says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      This will not suffice for most “religious” employers. They want their hands to remain as clean as Ponitus Pilate’s from any hint of cooperating with contraception coverage.
      The fact is that some denominations oppose transfusion. Should we carve transfusion coverage out of employer provided health insurance for businesses that adhere to those denominations?
      The fact is that the Supreme Court decision that held that corporations are persons with rights like freedom of religion is an abomination. How does a legal fiction have religious beliefs? I know of no religion that posits a relationship between god, however defined, and economic constructions created by human beings to more smoothly conduct business.

  • July 9, 2020 at 12:11 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 11

    …”giving faith-based groups a broader license to ignore civil rights laws of all types, including LGBT protections.”

    Ah yes, like the old bigoted man who hung a “No Trespassing” sign on the tree next to where a black woman sat, working on her computer. Because, that’s what Jesus would do! I totally remember that part in The Bible when Jesus said to kick people away from God, tell people they aren’t welcome with God, to hang up Keep Out signs next to those who aren’t causing any harm or trouble. They are just, you know, being dark skinned. Just like the real Jesus was.

    • July 10, 2020 at 3:48 pm
      mrbob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      For the Little Sisters of the Poor the argument is that abortion and contraception is ending life and they believe in a much stronger command of God being, Though Shall Not Kill. I am not certain if I fully agree that contraception ends a life but can see their point.

  • July 9, 2020 at 1:06 pm
    Craig Winston Cornell says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 17

    Hello? 7 to 2! That means liberals agreed folks. This wasn’t a hard decision.

    • July 15, 2020 at 11:21 am
      Rational says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Sisters or not, the court should not allow a self-appointed group to be the arbiter of the definition of murder for everyone who enters their employ or premises in an occupation or capacity that is protected by otherwise applicable law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects peoples right to practice religion without additional burdens placed on them by government. It should not be construed to prevent government from exercising jurisdiction over religious acts that project into the regulated sector of the public domain. Why did the courts rule that Native American tribes may not use illegal drugs in their rites despite claims of religious freedom? Are they now entitled to do that under RFRA?
      Truth is that we have been captured by a mentality of embattled religious faith and enlisted in an improper public crusade to reverse that into a battle against liberal denominations, atheists, and agnostics. And even the liberal supreme court justices have become hypnotized into Congress’ illegitimate effort.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*