General Discussion

bigtree

(85,996 posts) Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:06 PM Jun 2014

White House Considering Ways for President Obama to Mitigate Effect of SC Contraception Ruling

BuzzFeed News ?@BuzzFeedNews 6m

.@WhiteHouse will consider whether president can act on his own to mitigate effect of Supreme Court contraception ruling - @Reuters

Stephen Crowley ?@Stcrow 1m
Earnest re HOBBY LOBBY: “Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women that are employed by these companies..” pic.twitter.com/u8kqv8eM4u
Josh Earnest

Team Barack Obama ?@TeamBarackObama 4m
(WH Press Secretary) Earnest: "The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees" with Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby.

Vox:

In a briefing Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Josh Earnest emphasized that the President is eager to work with Congress to repair access to contraceptives.

"Congress should act to address the concerns of women affected by this Supreme Court decision," Earnest said. When pressed about whether the administration would seek to extend the accommodation, he added, "We'll consider whether there's an opportunity for the president to take some action that could mitigate this problem."

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

White House Considering Ways for President Obama to Mitigate Effect of SC Contraception Ruling (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2014 OP

I hope they do. Jeeze this is fucked. bettyellen Jun 2014 #1

something stop-gap bigtree Jun 2014 #3

bloody hell warrior1 Jun 2014 #2

Make Birth Control Free Dems2002 Jun 2014 #4

A federal guarantee on women's reproductive freedom would destroy the wedge issue and keep a l bettyellen Jun 2014 #5

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)

1. I hope they do. Jeeze this is fucked.

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:50 PM

Jun 2014

bigtree

(85,996 posts)

3. something stop-gap

Reply to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:55 PM

Jun 2014

. . . as the article points up the absurdity of having to carve out some special accomodation for what should be regarded as a basic right.

from Vox:

Supporters of the contraceptive mandate don't necessarily think that the accommodation is an appropriate fix . . .

"In our view, it does not answer the question for two reasons," says Marcia Greenberg, co-president at the National Women's Law Center. "First of all, it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable for women to be expected to look to some special out of the usual way of accommodating what is a core and basic health care need. Secondly, as a practical matter, this accommodation system has not been in operation long enough to know how it would work. It was never set up to apply on as broad a basis as this court decision may be calling upon it to have to fill in the gaps."