THE REALITY OF THE HOBBY LOBBY FIASCO

THE REALITY OF THE HOBBY LOBBY DECISION

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum; Hobby Lobby owner David Green and his "Christian" based company supplied their female employees every contraceptive available, [which included the now banned ones] in their health plan - that is until Obamacare was passed. Then all of the sudden their "Christian Faith" and "Moral Compass" hit them, and then...........

........The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Store, Inc. was stunning both in its sexist nature and in ignoring long-standing precedent preventing corporations from imposing their religious beliefs and values on employees.

On one side of the decision were the court's five conservative justices - all men appointed by Republican presidents - saying it was OK for Hobby Lobby and another company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, to ignore the federal health law requirement that the insurance policies they provide include free contraception coverage for women. Whether women take advantage of the coverage is, of course, up to them and their doctors.

On the other side of the 5-4 ruling were the three women on the court, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer - collectively representing the liberal wing - who decry in their dissenting opinion the majority's ruling that the religious positions of a few corporate leaders trump the personal freedoms of their female employees.

The two corporations challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds it includes methods that the corporate leaders consider tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. Forcing them to include the methods in coverage would make them complicit in the practice, they argued.

The court's decision hinges on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1994 that prevents the government from "taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest."

In other words, it is a bad and unclear decision based on a bad and unclear law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemingly recognizing the thin constitutional ice on which he was treading, sought to narrow the scope of the decision.

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family," Justice Alito writes, arguing that the ruling should only be viewed in that narrow context.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks through that transparent curtain.

"Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private," she writes.

Given the majority's expansive interpretation of the RFRA, why couldn't a Catholic corporate ownership deny any form of birth control coverage based on the church's teaching? Some religious sects oppose vaccines and transfusions, others medications derived from certain animals. Could owners with these beliefs refuse to provide insurance coverage for such treatments, Justice Ginsburg asks.

For that matter, she continues, the conservative majority's reasoning could extend outside of health policy, throwing out laws that prevent corporations from using their own religious standards to discriminate against unmarried people living together, or homosexuals, or those in inter-religious or inter-racial marriages.

Best case, the decision is so narrow that it is only OK for a closely held corporation to impose its beliefs on employees when the topic is the reproductive rights of women. Either way -broad or narrow - the ruling is a terrible one.

In 1982, the high court ruled on the case of an Amish farmer who believed that withholding Social Security taxes from his employees or paying the employer's share of such taxes would violate his faith. The court said he could not use a religious rights' argument to deny his workers participation in Social Security.

"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed … on others in that activity." An employer, that court found, cannot "impose (its) religious faith on the employees."

That is what Hobby Lobby is doing to its female employees. Maybe just maybe this court should have followed its own precedent.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SCOTUS SHUTS DOWN ABORTION BUFFER ZONE LAW

BUFFER ZONE NO MORE

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Massachusetts’ abortion buffer zone law on Thursday, ruling in favor of anti-choice protesters who argued that being required to stay 35 feet away from clinic entrances is a violation of their freedom of speech. The decision rolls back a proactive policy intended to safeguard women’s access to reproductive health care in the face of persistent harassment and intimidation from abortion opponents.

“By its very terms, the Act restricts access to ‘public way[s]‘ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and that the Court has accordingly labeled ‘traditional public fora,’ ” the opinion states. “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.”

Reproductive rights advocates had been hoping the justices would uphold the policy, which they say has gone a long way to ensure that woman can safely enter abortion clinics. More than 30 pro-choice organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Massachusetts’ buffer zone, which was approved in response to a mass shooting at several of the state’s abortion clinics.

According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which closely tracks threats and violence against abortion providers across the country, buffer zones have had a measurable impact in the areas where they’re in place. A recent survey conducted among NAF’s member organizations found that 51 percent of facilities in areas with buffer zones reported a decrease in criminal facility after the policy was enacted, and 75 percent of them said it helped improve patients’ and staff members’ ability to access the clinic.

“Buffer zones make a huge difference,” Ashley Hartman, who holds a master’s in public health from Ohio State University and has volunteered as a clinic escort in the Cleveland area.. “The reality is, if you've ever been outside a clinic, it’s not about exchanging ideas… Protesting is about creating the feeling of intimidation, so the more distance you can have from them, the less powerful that intimidation is.”

Now that the policy has been struck down, however, the women visiting reproductive health facilities in Massachusetts won’t be able to rely on that distance. Protesters will be allowed to crowd the sidewalks around the clinic and speak directly to patients — something that can make people feel uncomfortable enough to avoid the clinic and skip out on the health services they need.

“The fact that we even have clinic escorts is a good signifier that we need things like buffer zones,” Hartman pointed out. Clinic escorts like her are typically responsible for providing a friendly face to women who are nervous to walk past protesters, often working to distract them from what abortion opponents are shouting at them. “We wouldn't need escorts if walking into a clinic didn't involve that type of harassment.”

Thursday’s decision may put other areas’ buffer zones in jeopardy, too. Now that Massachusetts’ policy has been invalidated, it could pave the way for opponents to strike down similar laws on similar grounds. In practical terms, that means it’s probably about to get harder for many women to access clinics.

“We feel so strongly that abortion access shouldn’t depend on your income, or whether you have a car, or whether you have the right kind of health insurance,” Alicia Johnson, a Boston resident who volunteers with the Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund, a nonprofit group that helps low-income women pay for their reproductive care, said. “Once all of those things line up into place, you shouldn’t also have to face protesters who are trying to scare you away from the health center once you get there.”

Buffer zones are not entirely unusual policies. There are already buffer zones around funerals and polling places. Ironically, the Supreme Court itself has a large buffer zone around it to prevent protesters from picketing on its252-by-98-foot plaza, requiring demonstrations to take place on the sidewalk.

The opinion in the case acknowledges that states have a legitimate interest in passing laws to preserve access to reproductive health facilities. They’ll just have to figure out how to do it with different policies that “burden substantially less speech.” The justices write that Massachusetts hadn’t tried out enough alternatives before enacting a 35-foot zone, and could have proposed narrower solutions like passing local traffic ordinances to prevent the obstruction of clinic driveways.

Cross posted from thinkprogress

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

WHAT SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

SCOTUS RULES IN FAVOR OF PRAYER AT PUBLIC MEETINGS

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today ruled that a town in upstate New York may begin its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said “ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the town’s practices could not be reconciled “with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share of her government.”

Town officials said that members of all faiths, and atheists, were welcome to give the opening prayer. In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.

Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

Okay, so next we'll sacrifice a goat and two chickens to ensure a good harvest.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SNIVELING, WHINING AND CRYING

Since the Supreme Court decision, crisis lines have been inundated with calls from Teapublicans/tea baggers/teabillies distraught that 95% of Americans will have access to affordable healthcare!

Tea bagger's if you can't laugh with them, laugh at them.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE HIGH COURT HAS SPOKEN

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NFTOS
Ediotr-In-Chief
Roger West

SCOTUS Throws The Tea Overboard

Yes OBAMACARE is now "Constitutional!"

The Supreme Justices of the United States bitched slapped the radical republican tea baggers and told them to sit down and shut the phuck up, with an unprecedented 6-3 vote upholding POTUS’sObamacare. Obamacare is constitutional!

Score one for the good guys.



 CNN drops the ball in reporting the decision:

Well, almost. If by almost you mean - almost exactly wrong!


Reports are still coming in, and the ruling is reportedly rather complicated, but it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts unexpectedly sided with the center-left justices, upheld the individual mandate, and the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court majority.

The key, at this point, is that the court majority appears to have upheld the mandate as a tax.

Stay tuned for more info as it comes in.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West