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


mnhtnbb's Journal
mnhtnbb's Journal
June 30, 2014

Is anybody else incredibly angry today?

I find myself enraged at the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.

I am visibly shaking as I read and respond to some of the right wing comments on fb threads--particularly ones
put up by progressive organizations. I usually try to avoid engaging these right wing nutjobs, but today,
I am having a very hard time not jumping on the keyboard.

I am dumbfounded, well, not really, at the perpetuation by SCOTUS of the lies regarding some of the contraceptive

The entire legal challenge against the Obama administration was based on the fundamental lie that certain types of FDA-approved contraception can end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this suit took the unscientific stance that pregnancy begins at fertilization and certain types of contraception, like the morning after pill and IUDs, are “abortion-inducing” because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. But according to the legal definition of pregnancy, a woman is not actually considered to be pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted in her uterine lining — so anything that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation is defined as birth control. And on top of that, there’s evidence that those types of contraception don’t actually prevent implantation in the first place.

The justices who joined the Court’s 5-4 opinion didn’t appear to be concerned about scientific evidence, however. Monday’s decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, simply allows the business owners to follow their own definition of abortion. “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients,” he writes. “If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions.”

Without challenging the plaintiffs’ definition of what constitutes an abortion or an abortion-inducing drug, the Supreme Court has essentially allowed unscientific beliefs about birth control to carry the weight of the law


I am PISSED that some old fart employer wants to tell women which forms of contraception they may use.
What a bunch of patriarchal bullshit! And of course it comes from 5 MEN on the Court.

It is so blatantly discriminatory.

I am SO angry.

Anybody else?

June 26, 2014

Thanks for running a a great contest, regnaD kciN!

And congratulations to all the photographers--me, included!
This is the first time I've placed in the top three in one of these contests,
and I have to say I look forward to them every month. I have learned
so much from all of you!

June 25, 2014

In NC a lawsuit with a different twist was recently filed against

what was known as Amendment One here that banned gay marriage based on
a statewide vote in 2012 based on a voter turnout of <35% of eligible voters.

From the NY Times:

North Carolina’s Gay-Marriage Ban Is Challenged by Church


In a novel legal attack on a state’s same-sex marriage ban, a liberal Protestant denomination on Monday filed a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by barring clergy members from blessing gay and lesbian couples.

The lawsuit, filed in a Federal District Court by the United Church of Christ, is the first such case brought by a national religious denomination challenging a state’s marriage laws. The denomination, which claims nearly one million members nationwide, has supported same-sex marriage since 2005.

“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices,” said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.


And more religious groups have joined the suit:


June 14, 2014

You might find this piece from Thom Hartmann of interest, which begins:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

And ends:

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


For more on Thom Hartmann's source, see here:


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: NYC
Home country: USA
Current location: Durham, NC
Member since: Sat May 7, 2005, 11:13 PM
Number of posts: 31,452
Latest Discussions»mnhtnbb's Journal