A bigoted ruling carving out exceptions that pertain specifically to women.

[boston bean]

Based on alleged religious convictions.... Never thought I would see the day, but the day has come.

A discriminatory ruling which seeks to narrow the ruling only to "contraception" including the pill, IUD's, injections etc, happen to be things that only women would need, where the 5 supreme men on the court made it clear their ruling would NOT include religious objections to blood transfusions, vaccinations... after all men need and get those... Makes it even WORSE. Women aren't not on the same level as others... why because they have a uterus????!!!???

It's almost beyond belief that this is even a consideration for the court. Religious beliefs trump half the populations right to control their body, seek medical care for issues that involve womens health. You may say, this ruling does not do this.. But hell yes it does. It telegraphs exactly that.

Just narrowing it down and excluding other religious objections from their ruling, and not affording women the same consideration, means women are LESS than.

I am so spitting mad. I'm sorry for all the posts on this today... But I need to say this shit.

I am totally 100% confounded and disappointed, and scared for women in this country.

[sheshe2]

1. They are coming after us big time.

I'm scared for women too, bean. This "male ruling" was shameful!

[warrior1]

2. Five men not four

[boston bean]

3. Thanks, fixed! I knew that!

[Skittles]

4. absolutely correct, boston bean

this "pro-life" bullshit is simply a cover for misogyny

[CrispyQ]

5. I've been in such a bad mood all day.

I'm furious over this & the backward trend for women. I honestly believe that our vote is what they are ultimately going for.

[CrispyQ]

6. I hope this opens the door for suing executive's for their personal assets when the corporation does

wrong. But I know with this court that will never happen.

Scalia is a shitstain on humanity & not fit to sit on the bench. The other four are a tiny degree better than that.

[redqueen]

7. I saw this coming, and worse.

People are just ignorant of history and too apathetic to educate themselves.

I expect this will spread elsewhere:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172608

[smirkymonkey]

8. K&R!

[badtoworse]

9. Seriously? All of those reproductive services are still available.

The court only said the government can't force private companies to provide coverage that violates their religious beliefs. If you want that coverage, get it elsewhere. I don't see a problem.

[MH1]

11. Seriously?

It's called minimum standard of care.

Not everyone can easily switch employers to one who provides a decent health care package. (Which is why employer-provided health care is a bad idea in the first place, but changing that wasn't remotely possible.) So part of ACA defines a minimum standard for employer-provided plans.

If the employer provides a plan, doesn't that exclude the employee from subsidies through the exchange? So now they are put at paying out of pocket. Many won't do that, will not use birth control; there will be more unwanted pregnancies; thus more abortions. Not that HL gives a damn about abortions, or they wouldn't sell so much junk from China, where there is coercive abortion. (Maybe it's the coercive part that makes it ok?)

A big problem with the decision is that it claims it only pertains to birth control. Really? Why not blood transfusions or other medical procedure? Now you could have every "closely held" corporation (and there are a lot of them, as discussed on NPR's Marketplace this evening) parsing which bits of healthcare it wants to provide or not provide, and the result is a "race to the bottom".

Oh and as for that "All those reproductive services are still available" schtick? Don't worry, your buds at HL and their ilk are doing their best to make sure that those services will NOT be available. And if it costs $30 a month out of pocket (as birth control pills did last I checked, which was a while ago) that basically makes it NOT available for someone on a low income who already has a family.

[badtoworse]

14. I don't support the federal government overruling long and strongly held religious beliefs

We'll just have to disagree.

As for the transfusions and other procedures, I don't know if these were argued in the case. My guess is that they were not. If they were not, I would say that a precedent has been set whereby religious groupsw opposed to those procedures could sue for similar protections

[MH1]

23. They could have just paid the fine. Also, since when does a corporation have

the rights of actual persons? Oh yeah, since this right-wing SCOTUS. Funny, if someone dies from their product, the members of this corporation don't go to jail. When they start throwing the leaders of corporations in jail for the crimes of the corporation, then I'll consider whether a corporation gets to have a religious belief and impose it on their employees.

Also, in the Hobby Lobby case, how is their supposed "belief" defensible when they profit from crap made in China, where abortions are coerced?

[cali]

27. no. the court made it clear that this ruling does NOT FUCKING APPLY to those scenarios.

[badtoworse]

33. I was out fishing all day yesterday and did not have time to research the decision

If you did, I'll take your word for it.

[MadrasT]

12. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can result in DEATH

The ability to prevent pregnancy is therefore a medical necessity. This is basic, fundamental medical coverage for women. Not a frivolous add on.

Fail.

Take that right wing crap somewhere else.

[badtoworse]

17. "The ability to prevent pregnancy is therefore a medical necessity"

Birth control pills aren't all that expensive. Sorry, but I think it's unreasonable to expect an organization whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of birth control to provide them for you.

[bettyellen]

19. 100- 150 a month for people making 8-10 / hour is not expensive? are you kidding- or did you just

have no idea?

[badtoworse]

20. $15 - $50 a month

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/birth-control/birth-control-pill

[bettyellen]

21. that is their quote WITH INSURANCE and PP is only available in limited areas.

You know been shutting down clinics right and left? And fighting the use of IUDs as well? Loads of women are going to have to pay full retail. And they commonly cost 100$ and up- they used to cost 60-80 $ thirty years ago. Cheap, my ass.

[chervilant]

34. Seriously?!?

Do you not see the hypocrisy of a "corporation" purchasing most of their inventory from a country that mandates abortions, while asserting that they're " an organization whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of birth control"?!?

Seems likely they're more concerned about their bottom line.

(I am appalled that any member of this forum thinks this ruling is acceptable!)

[Starry Messenger]

13. How does a corporation have a "religious belief"?

Does it go to church?

[badtoworse]

15. It's shareholders hold those beliefs

[Starry Messenger]

16. Shareholders are not a corporation. It's a specific legal entity.

A piece of privately held rock does not have religious beliefs, and neither does a corporation.

[badtoworse]

18. I'm not a lawyer. I expect your argument was heard and rejected by the SCOTUS.

[MH1]

24. Five right-wing MALEs on SCOTUS.

Totally clueless of the reality and uninterested in knowing.

Seems to be a lot of that going around.

[Starry Messenger]

25. No, not really. But yours was never heard at all because it is fanciful to the point of trolling.

It has no basis in any legal argument to do with corporations whatsoever, and calls into doubt your entire understanding of US corporate law, business or even politics.

[MH1]

10. Don't be sorry for all the posts!

I am so F***ING mad that I can't even formulate a post. I appreciate folks like you posting for me, a lot of what I would say if I could get it together.

[misterhighwasted]

26. Same here MH1. Difficult to form a rational sentence. I feel like 5 men just kicked me in the uterus

I fear for the future of my two young granddaughters & all women.
The gradual erosion of civil, constitutional & human rights says we are on our way to becoming another Saudi Arabia.

I am heartsick

[Dawson Leery]

22. Bill gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Hillary will give someone just as good as Ruth (or better).

[misterhighwasted]

29. Yes she will. This must stop.

I feel completely betrayed tonight.

[BootinUp]

28. I am scared for all of us. We need solidarity to defeat this 5 headed monster. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. This was the men on the Supreme Court sending us women a little message....reminding us...

that we have to be "granted" our freedom and rights....by men....lest we forget that. This was just a shot across the bow wo remind us of that....

[awake]

31. While I agree the ruling will hurt woman, men will be affected as well

Women are not the only ones who use "contraception". All couples could be effected by this because unless you are gay, sex with out effective contraception may result in pregnancy, and as the loving father of 3 children I am very aware of the results of pregnancy and the effect it has on a relationship.

[misterhighwasted]

32. A thoughtful & somber post. Thanks