zealots 1, women 0 … scotus sets the ‘zealot precedent’ … game on!

scotus the roberts 5 by donkey hotey
original pic by Donkey Hotey
Welcome to your ‘New America’ ladies …
And, to the LGBT community, people of color and the poor, make no mistake, yer’ next kids …Not to mention the environment and labor …
That sound ya’ just heard was the floodgates opening …
Be honest … How long do you really believe it will be before someone claims ‘religious liberty’ to beat labor laws, environmental standards, anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, minimum wage statutes or any one of a thousand other laws that they see as ‘infringing on their beliefs’?
This decision wasn’t about contraception, it was about misogyny and power …
It’s about control, and profits, plain and simple …It’s about men controlling women …
This is another step towards rolling back EVERY single advancement in personal, environmental and civil rights for the last seventy plus years … all for the benefit of corporate America and their sycophants …
How long do you think it will be before some asshole decides he has found some bizarre, twisted in meaning for his own self-serving use, bible passage that says women can’t vote? … Or waves his ‘Jewish Book Of Fairy Tales’ around to prove that slavery is just and holy? …
My guess is that it’s right around the corner folks, and if you don’t believe me, or think that I am using hyperbole, go check out some of the right wing blogs and their comments sections …
and let’s not miss the fact that on the same day that this decision came down, these same asshats also opened the door to gutting unions
and, it was only a couple months back that they gutted your right to vote
WAKE THE FUCK UP BEFORE THIS NONSENSE TAKES REAL HOLD AND SPREADS ANY FURTHER THAN IT ALREADY HAS! …
_______________________________________________________________________
Justices act in other health law mandate cases
Justices: Can’t make employers cover contraception Associated Press
High court poised to decide birth-control dispute Associated Press
Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule Associated Press
U.S. justices uphold firms’ religious objections to contraception Reuters
White House: Court ruling risks women’s health Associated Press
________________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.
Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.
The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday’s 5-4 decision. Two Michigan-based companies, Autocam Corp. and Eden Foods Inc., both lost their cases in the lower courts. The justices ordered the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decisions against the companies.
________________________________________________________________________
Slut-shaming For The Righteous
Posted on Tuesday, July 1 | By Mark Morford
I suppose the good news is, more women are flocking to the Democratic party than ever before.
I suppose the good news is, the vast majority of young people – who are, on the whole,always more progressive/less uptight than their elders – are completely repulsed, if not outright infuriated, by the fact that women’s rights are still under such antiquated duress, as exemplified by how any half-brained company that happens to be owned by fundamentalist zealots can now deny vital health benefits to women (and only to women, tellingly), simply because the owners have a pinched, regressive view of God.
Did you know the owners of Hobby Lobby – which, by the way, is one of the most depressing, third-rate retail dystopias you’ll ever visit and you should avoid their stores at all costs, now more than ever – did you know the owners, being evangelical billionaires, have spent hundreds of millions trying to turn the nation into a cluster of regressive, Bible-thumping literalist simpletons? True.
Did you know they have done this because, as history clearly shows, basing a nation’s core values on an childish reading of a tedious, violently outdated book written (and re-re-rewritten) by highly neurotic old men thousands of years ago has worked so well in the past? Also true.

Found in the Hobby Lobby's craft kit (courtesy @themightylayman)
Found in the Hobby Lobby’s scrapbooking kit (courtesy @themightylayman)

But never mind that now: The (potentially) good news is that sometimes, when a demoralizing shocker like the Hobby Lobby decision comes down the wire, the end result isn’t always what you think. Sometimes the end result can, in fact, turn toward a powerful positive, a potent boomerang counter-effect in exactly the right direction. You think?
But wait, let’s not be too quick to whistle past the cultural graveyard. It’s downright appalling to learn that, in 2014, five out of the nine wisest legal minds in the land wouldn’t laugh off a fundamentalist challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate as blatantly offensive to the integrity of the modern era.
The fact that we’re still stuck with this old, male SCOTUS majority telling us that extremist misreading of the Bible trumps modern science and basic women’s health (not to mention how birth control coverage is actually great for business), well, it makes every woman I know cringe in deep cervical pain.
But as Amanda Marcotte over at Slate smartly points out, the Hobby Lobby decision is likely a short-lived victory for the Christian Right. The extreme narrowness of the decision, which almost fetishistically focuses on sex (and which spawned a truly epic dissent from the awesome Ruth Bader Ginsberg), congeals the entirety of the Right’s ideology around a single, panicky obsession: sexually active females.
Oh, Christians. Still with the vagina obsession? Could you be more predictable?
Put another way, by expending so much effort attacking women WRT a very narrow slice of the Affordable Care Act, the entire fundamentalist movement becomes even more trite, shrill and historically irrelevant. You can bet on it.
Don’t believe me? Just observe how badly the Christian right lost the battle – and soon the war – over gay marriage, the defining cultural issue of the last 30 years, and perhaps the last core American civil liberty. The epic Prop 8 fight left the GOP’s extremist base tattered, fragmented, furious that their leaders failed to stomp out the evil “gay agenda” (AKA “love”).
To make amends and shore up the “angry bigot” vote, the GOP quickly made the (very bizarre) decision to jump back on the warpath against their once-timid old nemesis, an enemy that has now become, much to their confusion, the most potent foe imaginable: women.
Open threats to Planned Parenthood, forcing abortion clinics in numerous states to close, limiting access for the poor, forcing women in regressive (southern) states to go across state lines for abortion services, or resort to DIY abortions (already happening, in Texas)? The GOP has done it all. They’ve attacked Wendy Davis, savaged Hillary (eternally), mocked Sandra Fluke and openly hated upon, with all their might, Obama and his birth control mandate. Just for starters.
But here’s the bottom line: It’s a tactic, and a platform, that’s as hostile as it is doomed.
Really, how short is the GOP’s memory? How quickly did the right forget that it was women and minorities who put Obama in power – twice? How blind are they to the fact that it’s modern women who are rallying around Hillary (and Elizabeth Warren, et al) in record numbers? Or that it’s women who are surging in polls, in college degrees, in executive power and cultural movements?
Perhaps most significantly of all, it’s women who are fighting back louder and better than ever against deeply sexist frat-bro culture, rape culture, the toxic stigma of slut-shaming. Note to conservatives and macho tech bros alike: If you didn’t take the#YesAllWomen phenomenon seriously, you get exactly what you deserve.
Let’s make one thing clear: It’s very likely the Hobby Lobby decision will cause an ugly rash of similar “privately held” companies to demand a bit of that ol’ Christian misogyny of their very own. Indeed, Mother Jones listed 71 companies who want similar birth control exceptions as Hobby Lobby. And it could get worse.
But imagine if a large private employer – IKEA or Walmart, say – were to declare a similar restriction on women’s health. My guess (hope?) is the public outcry would be deafening. I might be wrong, but I think most big-name companies would never risk the negative publicity, much less be dumb enough to declare that Jesus thinks women shouldn’t be having all that icky, irresponsible sex in the first place. In fact, most companies, if they value their future, are smart enough to go in the other direction, and more aggressively support women’s rights as a core business value.
Hence, the birth control mandate might remain restricted to small, backwater companies you’ve never heard of, as meanwhile women continue to take over and shift the cultural discussion entirely. And if Hillary (or similar) takes the Big Chair in 2016? What a delight to watch all the crusty males of the Supreme Court – and much of the fundamentalist GOP – whimper and shrivel into oblivion.
scalia law by hip is everything
________________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTE:
and it’s NOT JUST Hobby lobby …
here is a list of the other pending cases, which by the way, the Robert’s Five has just set precedent for, whether they will admit it or not …
Welcome to your ‘New America’ ladies …

  • Geneva College v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 2/21/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: The Pennsylvania-based for-profit plaintiffs are Seneca Hardwood, a lumber business, and WLH Enterprises, a sawmill. Geneva College is a Pennsylvania-based non-profit.

  • O’Brien v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/15/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: O’Brien Industrial Holding is a Missouri company engaged in the exploration, mining, processing, manufacturing, and distribution of refractory and ceramic raw materials.

  • Newland v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 4/30/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Hercules Industries Inc. is a Colorado corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation, and air conditioning products, owned by the Newlands and another plaintiff.

  • Weingartz Supply Company v. Sebelius (also known as Legatus v. Sebelius)

    FILED ON: 5/7/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Weingartz Supply Company is a secular Michigan company that sells outdoor power equipment. Legatus is a nonprofit organization comprising more than 4,000 members including individuals and professional organizations.

  • Triune Health Group v. Sebelius (also known as Yep v. Sebelius)

    FILED ON: 8/22/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Triune is a secular Illinois corporation that specializes in facilitating the reentry of injured workers into the workforce.

  • Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., et al. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/12/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Hobby Lobby is a national craft supply chain with headquarters in Oklahoma. Mardel (another plaintiff) is a privately held bookstore and education company specializing in Christian books and religious texts.

  • Tonn and Blank Construction v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/20/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Tonn and Black Construction, LLC, is an Indiana construction company.

  • Tyndale House v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/2/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Tyndale is an Illinois for-profit publishing company focusing on Christian books.

  • Autocam Corporation et al. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/8/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Autocam Automotive makes parts for transportation while Autocam Medical makes medical equipment. These are western Michigan-based manufacturing companies that operate across the United States.

  • Korte & Luitjohan Contractors v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

    FILED ON: 10/9/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc., is an Illinois-based full-service construction contractor.

  • American Pulverizer Co. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/19/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Springfield Iron and Metal, LLC, American Pulverizer Company, Hustler Conveyor Company, and City Welding are four Missouri-based companies involved in the business of wholesale scrap metal recycling and manufacturing of related machines.

  • Grote Industries v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/29/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Grote Industries is an Indiana-based, privately held business manufacturing vehicle safety systems.

  • Annex Medical Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 11/2/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Annex Medical and Sacred Heart Medical are companies that design, manufacture, and sell medical devices. They are owned by Stuart Lind. Tom Janas is an additional plaintiff who is an entrepreneur who has owned several dairy businesses in the past and intends to purchase another in 2013. He currently operates Habile Holdings and Venture North Properties, companies that lease commercial properties but currently have no employees.

  • Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 12/4/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation is a Pennsylvania-based wood cabinet and specialty products manufacturer.

  • Domino’s Farms Corporation v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 12/14/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Domino’s Farms is a Michigan-based property management company.

  • Sharpe Holdings Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 12/20/2012

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Sharpe Holdings Inc. is a Missouri corporation that is involved in the farming, dairy, creamery, and cheese-making industries. Ozark National Life Insurance Company is a Missouri insurance corporation; N.I.S. Financial Services is a Missouri mutual fund broker, and CNS Corporation is the Missouri-based holding company for Ozark, N.I.S,. and Sharpe Holdings.

  • Sioux Chief MFG. Co., Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 1/14/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Sioux Chief MFG. Co Inc. is a Missouri Corporation that manufactures plumbing products.

  • Gilardi v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 1/24/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Freshway Foods is a fresh produce processor and packer. Freshway Logistics is a for-hire carrier of mainly refrigerated products. The companies are Ohio-based for-profits that serve 23 states.

  • Briscoe v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 2/4/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Continuum Health Partnership is a Colorado-based oxygen supply company. Conessione is an Investment company.

  • Hall v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 2/5/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Reverend Gregory Hall is a Catholic Deacon who owns American Mfg Company, a Minnesota-based company that manufactures and markets mining equipment, mud pumps, and parts for global distribution.

  • Lindsay, Rappaport and Postel LLC v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 2/14/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: LR&P is an Illinois-based law firm that primarily practices in insurance defense, insurance coverage, and appellate work.

  • Armstrong v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/5/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Cherry Creek Mortgage Co. is a Colorado-based full-service residential mortgage banking company.

  • Beckwith Electric Co. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/12/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Beckwith Electric Co. is a Florida-based provider of microprocessor-based technology.

  • Bick Holdings Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/13/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Bick Holdings Inc. is a Missouri-based holding company for operating companies Bick Group Inc., Bick Properties Inc., and SEALCO LLC. Through these subsidiaries BHI engages in data center consulting, design, maintenance, service, and cleaning.

  • Eden Foods Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/20/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Eden Foods is a Michigan-based corporation that specializes in supplying macrobiotic, organic food.

  • Mersino Management Company v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/22/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Mersino Management Co. is a Michigan-based management company and provides insurance for Mersino Enterprises, Mersino Dewatering, Global Pump Co., and Mersino South-West.

  • Hartenbower v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/26/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: The Hartenbowers co-own Hart Electric LLC, an Illinois-based manufacturer of electrical components, and H.I. Cable.

  • MK Chambers Company v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

    FILED ON: 3/28/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: MK Chambers Company is a Michigan-based supplier of specialty machining.

  • Johnson Welded Products v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 4/30/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Johnson Welded Products is an Ohio-based manufacturer of reservoirs for air brake systems.

  • Ozinga v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 5/1/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: The Ozingas are owners and senior managers of Ozinga Bros. Inc., an Illinois-based producer of ready-made concrete.

  • SMA LLC. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 6/6/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: SMA LLC is a Minnesota based agricultural/industrial construction company.

  • Holland et al v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 6/24/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Holland Chevrolet is a West Virginia-based corporation engaged in selling and servicing motor vehicles.

  • Medford  v. Sebelius (also known as QC Group v. Sebelius)

    FILED ON: 7/2/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: The QC Group Inc is a Minnesota-based corporation, owned by Daniel Medford and David DeVowe, which provides quality control services.

  • Willis & Willis PLC v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 7/24/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Willis & Willis PLC is a Michigan-based law firm.

  • Trijicon Inc. v. Sebelius (also known as Bindon v. Sebelius)

    FILED ON: 8/5/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Trijicon Inc. is a Michigan-based maker of aiming systems for firearms.

  • Barron Industries v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/4/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Barron Industries Inc. is a Michigan-based company that produces metal castings for various industries.

  • Midwest Fastener Corp. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/5/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Midwest Fastener Corp. is a Michigan-based company that supplies fasteners to the hardware store, home center, and industrial markets.

  • Feltl & Co. Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/25/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Feltl & Co. Inc. is a Minnesota-based securities brokerage and investment banking company.

  • Randy Reed Automotive v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/8/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Randy Reed Automotive, Randy Reed Buick GMC, Randy Reed Nissan, and Randy Reed Chevrolet are Missouri-based car dealerships.

  • C.W. Zumbiel, Co. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/22/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Zumbiel Packaging is a Kentucky-based manufacturer of paperboard packaging for consumer goods.

  • Williams v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 10/30/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: The Williams own Electrolock Inc., an Ohio-based corporation that works in the electrical and thermal insulation industry.  Other plaintiff companies include Stone River Management Co. and Dunstone Co.

  • Doboszenski & Sons Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 11/14/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Doboszenski & Sons is a Minnesota-based company that provides services for excavation, demolition, and street construction and reconstruction.

  • Stewart et al. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 11/27/2013

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Encompass Develop, Design & Construct, LLC is a Kentucky-based architect, design and construction service of which John Stewart is the managing and sole member.

  • Hastings Automotive v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 1/29/2014

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Hastings Automotive Inc. (known as Hastings Ford) and Hastings Chrysler Center are Minnesota car dealerships.

  • Catholic Benefits Association v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 3/12/2014

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: For- and nonprofit corporations including the Catholic Benefits Association and Catholic Insurance Company.

  • M&N Plastics v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 5/31/2013 (in DC district court); 11/18/2013 (in Michigan district court)

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: M&N Plastics is a Michigan-based supplier of custom injection molding products.

  • Mersino Dewatering Inc. v. Sebelius

    FILED ON: 9/3/2013 (in DC district court); 11/26/2013 (in Michigan district court)

    ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF: Mersino Dewatering Inc. is a Michigan-based company that provides dewatering (water removal) services. It has branches in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania
    ________________________________________________________________________

    gop knows by hip is everything

  • Random Observations on the Hobby Lobby Decision

    1. Everything you really need to know about the decision made a five-man majority on the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is in this paragraph on page 46 of Justice Samuel “Is my wife crying again?” Alito’s opinion: “In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance- coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage require- ments, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.”
    In other words, the Supreme Court’s majority was too punkass to do anything other than prevent women from having their insurance pay for contraception at roughly 90% of American corporations. However, the implication of its decision is, more or less, “Fuck, yeah, go crazy, you nutzoid religious freaks.” (Oh, and they will. Floodgates open, motherfuckers.) The majority refused to say that because attacking women and icky women parts is totally cool. But immunizations? Shit, that means we might get diseases.
    It even goes against the logic that the Court used to make its decision. As an example, Alito cites a case where a store with devout Jewish owners who closed on Saturday and wanted to open on Sunday, which, at the time, Pennsylvania law did not allow. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the justices used to rule for Hobby Lobby and the rest, that store would have been able to open. So if that’s cool, why do the justices even attempt to say that their decision can’t be extended to other things? It’s a fuckin’ lie. Just go for it, assholes.
    1a. The RFRA was a bullshit piece of legislation passed in a heated panic after the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that it was fine to deny unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired after they “ingested peyote” as part of a religious tribal ritual. Writing for the majority in the case, Antonin Scalia said ruling for the two men “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Yes, you read that correctly. Yes, it’s accurate.
    In other words, one can assume now, they weren’t Christians. And Antonin Scalia, who voted with the majority for Hobby Lobby, is a repulsive hypocrite. (Read the Smith decision. It’s nauseating in contrast to today’s.)
    2. Probably the most breathtaking aspect of the majority’s opinion is how it just doesn’t give two shits about women. Alito’s decision doesn’t take into account, even for a line or two, how a ruling for “religious liberty” is a ruling against women, dismissing that notion outright, in fact. This is all about making sure that butthurt Christians can do what their specific sect believes will please an invisible sky wizard, which includes, for some, making sure that women have those goddamn babies. The majority just ignores that there’s real women with real lives who this decision really affects.
    It’s up to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent to bring the noise, spending the first part demonstrating that this whole thing is about women and their bodies and their value as more than just baby carriers (Christ, are we really still talking about this? What the fuck is wrong with us?) and that contraception is used for more than stopping baby-making. Ginsburg notes, for instance, “the disproportionate burden women carried for comprehensive health services and the adverse health consequences of excluding contraception from preventive care available to employees without cost sharing.” Obviously, though, making sure that rich people don’t offend their great googly-moogly in the clouds is more important.
    3. This is not just a victory for religious intolerance. It’s also a victory for faith and politics over science. “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients,” writes Alito. Well, fuck what your religion tells you about medicine. The contraceptive methods do not cause abortions. In fact, they would lower the rate of abortions if people would stop being such blind believers in the bullshit their religious leaders shoot into their brains with a cross-shaped hypodermic. The earth revolves around the sun, and your fucking pope ain’t gonna change that.
    Alito says that it would obviously be a “severe burden” because “If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions.” And that might be worth arguing if the belief wasn’t based on a complete mountain of garbage, most of which has come from conservative political groups whose existence is predicated on tricking the shit-eating yahoos into thinking that “birth control” equals “abortion.”
    Waxing romantically about the plaintiffs, Alito writes, “Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons are devout members of the Mennonite Church, a Christian denomination. The Mennonite Church opposes abortion and believes that ‘[t]he fetus in its earliest stages . . . shares humanity with those who conceived it.'” Except now we’re not arguing over whether life begins at conception. We’re arguing over what “conception” is. You see, children, you aren’t born just because a tiny sperm wants to makes sweet love with a big ol’ egg. Oh, no. You need ovulation. You need implantation. That is, those lovers gotta have a uterus bed to lay in or nothing’s happening. No pregnancy. Again, that shit’s science. (And it’s how pregnancy and conception are defined under federal law.)
    You prevent ovulation, like the morning-after pill does, you prevent pregnancy. You prevent pregnancy, and you prevent abortion.
    3. Substitute the word “Muslim” for “Christian” and see if it bugs you even a little, dear ignorant Jesus lovers. “The owners…have sincere Muslim beliefs” or “David and Barbara Green and their three children are Muslims who own and operate two family businesses.” Or how about: “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring Allah in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Quran-based principles'”? Maybe: “The businesses refuse to engage in profitable transactions that facilitate or promote alcohol use; they contribute profits to Muslim organizations; and they buy hundreds of full-page newspaper ads inviting people to say, ‘Allahu akbar'”?
    You’re cool with that? Fuck you, you’re lying.
    4. The only positive way to read this decision is that the Court has opened the door for a justification for universal health care. The government can pay for this, the majority said, and we don’t have problem with it. Says Alito, “The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.”
    Of course, don’t worry. If that ever came before this court, they’d find a way to shut it down and then call it “justice.”
    (Note: This was updated to reflect what Plan B actually does. One of the IUDs in the Hobby Lobby quartet may prevent implantation if used as emergency contraception)
    reposted from the rude pundit …

    the real conservatives by hip is everything

    Supreme Court

    Advertisements

    One thought on “zealots 1, women 0 … scotus sets the ‘zealot precedent’ … game on!

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s