General Discussion

boston bean

(36,219 posts) Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:13 PM Jun 2014

Since the gov't can pay for contraception per the SCOTUS...

and Alito falsely calls contraception abortifacients in his ruling, is the Hyde Amendment unconstitutional?

Hyde Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Since the gov't can pay for contraception per the SCOTUS... (Original Post) boston bean Jun 2014 OP

That's a good question - I suspect the answer is that there is no consistency el_bryanto Jun 2014 #1

Well, if the gov't can pay, and corps don't have to.... boston bean Jun 2014 #3

I would too - and I hope someone does. el_bryanto Jun 2014 #6

No. Shrike47 Jun 2014 #2

I'm not sure about that. boston bean Jun 2014 #4

The government paying was one proposed option in the decision. The S Court did not say Shrike47 Jun 2014 #8

If the gov't makes it so there are no less intrusive ways boston bean Jun 2014 #9

And I'm so certain that Alito had no knowledge of this amendment when he wrote his opinion. bluesbassman Jun 2014 #5

I say after this ruling Drale Jun 2014 #7

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

1. That's a good question - I suspect the answer is that there is no consistency

Reply to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:19 PM

Jun 2014

to be expected from the reasoning of our beloved supreme court.

Bryant

boston bean

(36,219 posts)

3. Well, if the gov't can pay, and corps don't have to....

Reply to el_bryanto (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:20 PM

Jun 2014

I assume that the Hyde Amendment will not be added to any future bills.

At least I would be making that argument if I were some legal eagle testing this bullshit out.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

6. I would too - and I hope someone does.

Reply to boston bean (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:31 PM

Jun 2014

But . . . this really seems like a decision where they worked out what they wanted ("We want to let Hobby Lobby/Constenoga Timber off the hook, but don't want it to be applicable to other cases that would be more problematic (i.e. involve men)&quot and then worked backwards from that into their "legal reasoning." I suspect a challenge to the Hyde amendment would go the same way.

But someone should totally try it.

Bryant

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)

2. No.

Reply to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:20 PM

Jun 2014

The gov't can choose to pay by passing appropriate legislation, or choose not to pay, by passing legislation like the Hyde amendment.

We need to get the Pukes out of Congress.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)

4. I'm not sure about that.

Reply to Shrike47 (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:22 PM

Jun 2014

But then again, I am not a lawyer....

However, if the ruling is that the option to corps not paying for it, the gov't can... I assume by taking away that option of the gov;t being able to pay may be unconstitutional.

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)

8. The government paying was one proposed option in the decision. The S Court did not say

Reply to boston bean (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:18 PM

Jun 2014

government has to pay, or that a statute saying they won't pay is unConsitutional. The decision say there are other, less intrusive, ways to obtain the same goal, such as government pay. In other words, they didn't say the women have a right to the contraception in their health plan. That wasn't the issue before the court.

In practical fact, the insurance companies will pay.