Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lordsummerisle

(4,651 posts)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:03 PM Jul 2014

Did anyone just see Rachel's segment on the Hobby Lobby ruling?

She says that the SC quietly issued some followup documents that said that all forms of birth control (not just the 4 originally mentioned) were included in the ruling. This is hard to believe...

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did anyone just see Rachel's segment on the Hobby Lobby ruling? (Original Post) lordsummerisle Jul 2014 OP
Someone said Kos had an article yesterday and Fugelsang rurallib Jul 2014 #1
Yes, this was posted yesterday here on DU. Ilsa Jul 2014 #2
Thanks lordsummerisle Jul 2014 #3
Yes. Those of us who saw this coming took a lot of guff from certain persons on this board. nt Hekate Jul 2014 #4
the usual dipshits Skittles Jul 2014 #5
Believe it. riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #6
Yep I have been seething about this all day....people are shocked when you tell them this... VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #7
It's true. Triana Jul 2014 #8
Mahalo Triana! Rec this too.. Cha Jul 2014 #11
Yep. progressoid Jul 2014 #9
KIck and no I haven't seen it online yet.. thanks lordsummerisle Cha Jul 2014 #10

Ilsa

(61,695 posts)
2. Yes, this was posted yesterday here on DU.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:08 PM
Jul 2014

There were several threads about it. On Tuesday, the SC issued a clarification that closely held corps could deny ALL contraception coverage, not just the four HL had singled out. SC also told lower courts to revisit any rulings to the contrary.

Also, other companies that wish to apply for federal contracts have asked the Obama Administration to relieve them of requirement not t discriminate against LGBT persons.

Believe it. Complacency and stolen elections make this shit happen.

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
8. It's true.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:19 PM
Jul 2014

The Hobby Lobby decision is much more sweeping than conservative media are portraying. Here's how: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/fox-news-ignores-current-legal-challenges-that/199960

Fox is ignoring the fact that companies are challenging all 20 contraceptives covered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and that one way the conservative majority suggested the government could bridge the gap in coverage -- providing the same opt-out accommodation to for-profits that it provides to religiously-affiliated non-profits -- is already being challenged in the lower courts.


. . .

The idea that the ruling in Hobby Lobby is somehow contained to the facts presented -- and the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby originally challenged -- is misleading. As the Associated Press reported the day after the decision, a flurry of subsequent Supreme Court orders "confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling." These orders, sending cases involving companies challenging all 20 contraceptive methods -- not just the Hobby Lobby ones -- back down for reconsideration, "sent a fairly strong signal on Tuesday that its ruling giving some for-profit businesses a right not to provide birth control services to their female workers goes beyond the specific methods at issue in that decision," in the words of legal expert Lyle Denniston.

Further, although the conservative majority claimed its holding applied only to "closely held" corporations, it failed to note that over 90 percent of corporations are defined as closely held, and not all closely held corporation are mom-and-pop shops -- including Hobby Lobby, which employs thousands of people and operates over 600 stores. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, "as Hobby Lobby's case demonstrates, such claims are indeed pursued by large corporations, employing thousands of persons of different faiths, whose ownership is not diffuse. 'Closely held' is not synonymous with 'small.'" Ginsburg went on to note that "Hobby Lobby is hardly the only enterprise of sizable scale that is family owned or closely held. For example, the family-owned candy giant Mars, Inc., takes in $33 billion in revenues and has some 72,000 employees, and closely held Cargill, Inc., takes in more than $136 billion in revenues and employs some 140,000 persons." Other corporate law experts seconded Ginsburg's warning that the majority's newfound corporate religion could be used by all companies, closely held or no.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did anyone just see Rache...