Citing religious freedom, Missouri lawmakers override Nixon’s veto of birth-control bill

Perhaps that's why they don't see the need for birthcontrol?

My wife said the exact same thing!

My religious beliefs are unalterably opposed to war and militarization.

Do you think these Missouri state legislators and the Archdiocese of St. Louis will support my right to not pay my portion of federal income tax that goes to fund the U.S. military?

I mean, if they are going to be consistent, then they are going to have to support the rights of every religious individual and group that has a problem with whatever part of government they don't believe in .... right?

They would also find it a sin to support wars. What will they do?

is using a strategy of divide an conquer to divide people based upon racial identity as a means to defeat gay marriage in Maryland.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113719561

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/09/13/maryland-marriage-coalition-issues-warning-nom

"“The link between the national and statewide group is significant because of NOM’s national strategy - used in a number of states - to defeat marriage for gay and lesbian couples,” says the memo. “That strategy as outlined in its 2009 internal memos is to ‘drive a wedge between gays and blacks… fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop. 8.’”

Approximately 25% of voters in Maryland are African-American, which has raised concerns that the racially divisive tactics could be used in the state. NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond recently wrote that “a victory would deal a serious blow to the National Organization for Marriage” because of the race-baiting strategy the group has admitted."

Some "Christian" organization this is.

never looked back.

Now they have to live under THEIR religion.

Doesn't this go against the ACA? Since when can a state law override a federal law? Also, since this bill only affects women, and employers can't impose their religious beliefs upon their employees for any other medication or medical procedure, wouldn't that be grounds for a gender discrimination lawsuit?

It was the legal basis for the secession of the South. The Civil War was fought to refute the Constitutionality of that claim.

enacted in stupid policy.

This law will be overturned in court.

Why is it that Republicans insist on putting women's rights second to everything else? Second to a fertilized egg and second to their employer's religious beliefs.

declared unconstitutional.

cannot do. Religious freedom means you are free to worship who or whatever you choose. Not who you serve if you are in a service industry. If you don't want to serve the public equally...then get another job. That is what is meant by the separation of church and state. America was built on freedom of religion and since the civil rights act, equal rights for all was intended. That means...stop trying to control what I do with MY body. It's none of YOUR damn business. That's just one more reason to support a single payer healthcare system. I probably pay more in taxes than they do. Spare me with that holier-than-thou shit. These GOP lawmakers and Catholic priests are some of the most hypocritical and bizarre human beings on the face of this earth. Not to mention, some of the biggest purchasers of porn and molesters of innocents. Their greed is also unsurpassed. Get your big noses out of MY affairs. Get a life.

it's been long known that American Catholics support birth control.

No, this is a "victory" for the religious right out to control women. Period.

...should not be affected by my employer's religious beliefs which I may not share.

If we start letting employers pick and choose, pretty soon there will be other aspects of health insurance that will be impacted.

Some employers may want to forego paying for HIV treatments. After all, it's mostly gays who need this treatment, and we don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choices.

If an employer is a Jehovah's Witnesses, they may want to forego paying for blood transfusions. Why should they have to pay for a procedure that they themselves do not believe in and would never use?

If an employer is a Christian Scientist, they may want to forego health insurance altogether, since they do not believe in medical practice in any form. So why should they have to pay for it?

Interestingly, though, the lawmakers only address women's reproductive issues. Although it appears some of them are starting to think about other conscience objections, such as allowing health care providers to refuse to serve suspected GLBT people.

It is sick. The state is supposed to operate for the good of all of its citizens. Birth control and abortions are legal. Being gay is legal. The state cannot pick and choose which religious "exceptions" to allow or we will soon have a patchwork where you never know if you can get insurance for your particular health issues or treatment for those issues even if your insurance covers the treatment.

But we still have people arguing that it is not imposing religious beliefs. After all, you can just choose to pay for it yourself -- well, as long as you can find someone who is willing to deal with your health issue at all. So what's the problem?

We both agreed: single-payer would alleviate this problem.

Then the religious right could go back to worshiping in their churches and not in our government.

nation states as religions too, perhaps.

File a brief or injunction based on freedom from religion. Really, the religion of your employer should not impact the benefits received by the employee. Granted, in the 19th century factory owners forced workers to attend the company church (at least in England), but this is another abuse of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment reads as follows:


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The US Supreme Court has long see the restrictions on government and religion as they read, the Government can NOT do anything for a religion OR against a religion.

The problem is most religions object to many things that are also CRIMINAL violations. i.e, is it unconstitutional for a State to pass a law against MURDER, on the grounds that MURDER is listed in the Ten Commandments and thus is violation against Jewish, Christian and Moslem beliefs? No, the Courts have ruled Murder is a Crime independent of the fact it is banned also my most religions.

Is it unconstitutional for the State to provide Welfare to its poor Citizens, for Religion demands such support? Again the Answer is NO. Even if the law is the product of the State Legislative system (as opposed to Traditional Common Laws), just because religion supports or oppose something does NOT mean passing that law makes the law a violation of the First Amendment.

Given the above, and given that this restriction on Birth Control was passed by a State Assembly, lets look at this law. On its face it does NOT "establish a religion", nor does it "prohibits the free exercise" of a religion, thus as such this law is NOT a violation of the First Amendment. In simple terms if you want to attack this as a violation of the First Amendment, you will lose.

On the other hand, there are two other CONSTITUTIONAL concepts that this law MAY violate. The first is the Equal Protection Clause of the 15th amendment, i.e. how is birth control different then other forms of medication? AND why is the state treating birth control different from other forms of medication. The US Supreme Court has restricted this concept, for it defers to the State Legislature when it comes to HOW to treat things differently (for that is what a State Legislature does, it sets up laws based on different things, four lane roads are treated differently then dirt roads for example, large cities are treated differently then a rural township). On the other hand, the difference has to be something real, not because people hate or support something. Thus the Governor's position that the existing law that permits Employers NOT to provide Birth Control to its employees would pass constitutional muster on Equal Protection Grounds, but to expand that ban to include insurance Companies and individuals could NOT be justified under Equal protection ground. Given the history of the Equal Protection Clause this can be a weak argument, but it is better then one citing the First Amendment,

On the other hand, the second Constitutional attack has a very good chance of winning, it is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, i.e. Federal Law trumps State Law. It is the grounds the people who have filed against this law are apparently using. The law vetoed and pass is in clear violation of Obamacare and how Congress and Obama decided HOW to address the issue of people objecting to paying for something they disagreed with (Again, what legislatures do). Even the Conservatives on the Supreme Court will rule against the state on this ground (They all support Federal Supremacy). An attorney MAY bring up the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, but any real attack will use the Supremacy Clause. I do NOT even see this case going to the US Supreme Court, the lower courts will strike it down as violating the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution and that will be it.

Employers are not providing birth control. They arev providing health insurance. Insurance companies actually reduce their own costs and suppossedly premiums by providing women the choice to use contraceptives provided by their companies.
No employer is paying for this benefit, so to claim that they are being forced to subsidize birth control is just bull. What they really want to do is display their right to intolerance of a mainstream family practice. They wish not to preserve their own rights but to pretend they suffer because women elect to use birth control. Act8ually they have no real stake here and should not be interfering in the insurance company's right toact i the interest of both themselves and our society nor seek to hinder a womans right to control her own body.

Carlin was right.

I've had with these fucking church people. We should tax these mother fuckers. If they are so interested in government and politics and public policy, let them pay their admission price like everyone else. But what they really should do is tell these priests that took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys. When Jesus said "suffer the little children come unto me," that's not what he was talking about.

Personally, they don't play the sex game, they shouldn't make the rules. Assholes! I hate religion.

What a load!

Caesarean births, antibiotics, etc. because of religious beliefs? What happens then?

may be another thing Catholics have a problem with.

I think they are thought to be elective.

to say our "religious freedom" depends on not letting other people have insurance coverage for birth control.

or have abortions, they don't have to. Why they think they have to prevent everyone from doing so baffles me.........