Hobby Lobby is PEOPLE!

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the arts and craft chain Hobby Lobby can opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate.

In a majority opinion written by conservative Justice Alito, the court wrote in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby :

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

Really?  And why is that?  We only overrule federal law when it’s law that Justice Alito and the conservative members of the court don’t like?  Religion only trumps all else when it’s religions favored by the Republicans on the court?

Here is more from SCOTUSblog’s live-blog of the opinion’s release this morning:

Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.

Hobby Lobby photo via DangApricot. Pope clothes via Shutterstock (Maxisport / Shutterstock.com)

Hobby Lobby photo via DangApricot. Pope clothes via Shutterstock (Maxisport / Shutterstock.com)

Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Bingo. Why are we letting corporations take religious offense to contraception but not religious offensive to the fact of someone being gay, or black, or a woman?  Does this mean a huge corporation run by a conservative Muslim can now discriminate against women?  Or someone who’s gay?  The court says “of course not!”  But the details of their decision might say otherwise.

Remember, it was only a few months ago in Arizona that Republicans attempted to pass legislation giving companies the religious right to discriminate against gays, and possibly others. This issue isn’t just about abortion. It’s about the ongoing, and somewhat ingenious, effort by conservatives to pretend that America is a country unfriendly to the very people and religions that run the entire place.  (When will a white Christian man ever be elected president, or be permitted to run a Fortune 500 company?!)

Gay legal group Lambda Legal weighed in:

“Today’s ruling is about the ACA and women’s reproductive health and rights, but, some may mistake this narrow ruling as a wide open door for religious liberty exemptions from other statutes that protect employees and the public,” Pizer added. “Today’s opinion says doing so would be incorrect. However, recent mistreatment of LGBT people in employment and other commercial settings still makes this extremely troubling. A business owner’s religious objection to a worker’s same-sex spouse or a customer’s LGBT identity is not acceptable grounds for discrimination. It is more important than ever that states and Congress enact strong, clear nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.”

I suspect that Lambda Legal’s statement is intentionally ambiguous. They want to express concern for this decision, while at the same time not acknowledging that the court may have just made it open season on minorities (if they acknowledge it, they fear, from a legal perspective, that their own words may be used against them to make it so).

Here’s an interesting additional point from SCOTUSblog:

It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage.

And more qualification from the court:

Kennedy’s opinion emphasizes that in this particular case, a mechanism for accommodating employers is “already in place” so that the majority opinion does not require the Govt to create “a whole new program or burden on the Govt”

We’ve written a number of articles about the Hobby Lobby case. One of the main concerns about this case is the ongoing effort by conservatives to turn corporations into “people.”  After all, that’s what this opinion is about; permitting a rather large company to pretend that it‘s a person with religious beliefs.  As we noted in a few previous stories, if Hobby Lobby is a Christian, then when and where was the retail chain baptized?  And was Hobby Lobby circumcised?

Gaius brought up another interesting point a while back: If Hobby Lobby is a person, in addition to a corporation, then when someone sues the corporation can they then sue the people running the corporation as well? Piercing the corporation veil, as we say in the law?  Gaius Publius quotes Mike Papantonio on this very point:

At the heart of this, what you have is, you have Hobby Lobby saying, “We’re a corporation but we’re a devout Christian corporation. … If you follow that rationale, the separateness that usually distinguishes the owner of the corporation from the corporation [itself] is then destroyed. …

[So] If this thing passes, you’re going to see me suing corporations, saying there’s no distinction between your owner and you — so you, Mr. Green, who owns Hobby Lobby, I’m going to bring you into the case, and you’re not going to have any separate protection, any indemnification between you and your corporation.

It seemed only appropriate to close with this:


NOTE FROM JOHN: I know I say this a lot, but I’m not kidding, we need your help sharing our content on social media if we’re going to keep AMERICAblog alive. Please share our stories, which brings us visitors, and helps us earn more ad revenue.” Thanks for your help. JOHN


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • claudineabelson

    until I saw the paycheck which said $8694 , I didn’t
    believe that my sister was like trully erning money part time on there
    computar. . there friends cousin had bean doing this for only thirteen months
    and resantly repayed the dept on their home and bought themselves a Infiniti .
    check out the post right here F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • cambridgemac

    In my lifetime, Presidents failed to get their way in the cases of Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell (Nixon), Abe Fortas (Johnson), and Harriet Myers (Dubya) – and those are just the ones that occur to me off the top of my head in the first two minutes.
    Prior to Reagan, the American Bar Assocation vetted all Supreme Court nominees, giving them a rating – in fact, the ABA provided a list of potential candidates to the President. Reagan ended this practice because his handlers wanted to put hacks like Bork on the Court and knew they would get trashed. (Bork was the man who fired Special Investigator Archibald Cox when Elliot Richardson resigned, rather than follow Nixon’s orders in the matter. Bork had no such qualms.)
    So, your history is not only incomplete, it’s just plain wrong.
    Further, you impute to me an argument I did not make. I never suggested that “it’s feasible under most circumstances for either party in the Senate to block the Supreme Court nomination of a president from the other party.” What a stupid idea. Your idea.
    History shows that until Reagan changed the process, the parties were able to agree on nominations in the majority of cases – as they should have. Since Reagan, however, there has been a concerted effort to place rightwing hacks on the bench. Some Democrats have opposed these efforts while many others have colluded.

  • Matt Booth

    I find I vote against someone more than I vote for someone. You don’t have to vote all party line. There are good people on both sides of the political system. Reseach before you vote. You will have two years of crossing off names to get ready.

  • Matt Booth

    Yes, the exemption will allow each religious group to redefine what they have to pay for and what they can omit. Jobs are hard to find these days. But know who your working for.

  • Matt Booth

    GM would have to claim automobile electrical systems go against their religion. As it says above, “It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” The corporate veil is still intact for Hobby Lobby if someone sues damages from slipping on the floor in their store. That person can only sue the corporation. Not each board member one by one.

  • simoneshelly

    My Uncle Riley got an almost new red GMC
    Canyon just by some parttime working online with a laptop. visit their website F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • met00

    If corporations are people, then they can go to jail So, if GM (the corporation) knew about the ignition switches, then a local sheriff can arrest GM for manslaughter. Now, if a corporation can have a religion, invest in politicians, etc. Then it can be arrested for manslaughter, tried and convicted and go to jail, just like people.

  • met00

    I have my accountant seeing if I would benefit by filing my tax return as a corporation. If a corporation can have a religion, then I should be able to file my personal income taxes as a corporation if it so benefits me, otherwise it’s separate and unequal.

  • http://www.americablog.com/ Naja pallida

    Hobby Lobby’s employee insurance covered all the things they’re now opposed to, right up until the Affordable Care Act mandated it. Then it suddenly became a religious dilemma for them. Their hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds.

  • FLL

    No need to do freelance research or jump through hoops for Bill. I think we’re familiar with the cases that Kagan and Sotomayor have ruled on. Bill states in his reply that Kagan and Sotomayor are guilty of being misogynists and lap dogs of the rich. I think that is a matter between Bill and his pharmacist. Get a list of cases for Bill? Why not turn the tables and ask Bill to jump through hoops for your amusement?

  • FLL

    This is one of your very worst lapses in writing style and common sense to date. It would have taken you only a minute to verify that Kagan and Sotomayor, who are Obama’s only two Supreme Court nominations, did not vote with the majority in this case. Someone reading your reply above would think that you are going off the deep end. Get a grip, Nicho.

  • ckg1

    I added the qualifier “Not in my lifetime, your kid’s or your grandkid’s”.

    If memory serves, same-sex marriage has been percolating as an issue for…what, decades? I’m in my mid 40s and I’ll likely go toes up before single payer ever becomes law nationwide.

  • FLL

    Pardon me. Nominated. It’s almost unheard of for the Senate to refuse to confirm a president’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It almost never happens. And when it does happen, it’s a huge deal that people argue about for decades and decades. The obvious case is when Senate Democrats filibustered Robert Bork’s nomination, which Republicans still complain about vocally to this day. In your second point above, you suggest that it’s feasible under most circumstances for either party in the Senate to block the Supreme Court nomination of a president from the other party. That is just not true and you know it. Confirmation in the Senate is not 100% certain, since there are those very rare exceptions, but it’s pretty damn close to certain, and that has been the track record throughout American history. Your second point is deceptive.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Get us a list of cases. Then we can examine whether or not what you’re saying has any merit and examine the role of the Supreme and the courts in general in terms of their misogyny and their role as lap dogs of the rich in black robes.

  • ckg1

    Then the approach must be multi-pronged: A. get more Dems in there(preferably with lesser ties to the rich) and B. do the nitty-gritty work in the places you suggest. Concentrating it all in one option doesn’t work.

  • cambridgemac

    1. Justices aren’t “appointed.” They become Justices once the Senate confirms them by a majority vote.
    2. You say nothing about the key Democratic votes that got the Repukes onto the Court.

  • cambridgemac

    After a dozen ranting entries in this thread, I think it’s clear who’s hysterical.

  • cambridgemac

    Hobby Lobby is sort of a Tammy Faye kinda person. That’s how.

  • jomicur

    Yeah, and gay marriage will never happen here either. Oh, wait…

  • therling

    How does Hobby Lobby’s “deeply held religious belief” that compels them to not pay for certain medical expenses reconcile with this?

    “Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

  • petewestcentral

    Isn’t this decision a milestone in the struggle for equal rights? The for-profit Uber Person was unduly burdened and the non-profit Uber was exempt while the law, as Ginsberg pointed out, makes no distinction between for-profit and non-profit Uber Persons.

  • dcinsider

    It has not gotten a lot of play, but add the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – the statutory basis for this decision – to the long list of Bill Clinton passed pieces of legislation that harm progressives, and gays and lesbians. Not satisfied with DADT and DOMA, Clinton signed this POS legislation.

    Had he possessed the guts — and he is the most gutless human on earth — to veto any of these harmful laws at the time, we would not have had to deal with the ramifications of his incompetence. Chalk up another boner for Bill Clinton.

    Hillary on 2016?

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice . . . .

  • TheOriginalLiz

    America is well on the way to becoming an extremist country – will our grandchildren live in the christian version of Pakistan?

  • Indigo

    It might even prove to be a ricochet event since it’s a strangely weak religion that has to demand support from the legal system in order to enforce its superstitions as if they were laws.

  • Mark_in_MN

    Scalia has left behind sound rulings of law on the basis of any consistent principles and reasoning and now seems to be simply exercising raw political power from his Supreme Court seat. All the supposed legal principles he’s spent a lifetime crowing about (such as his vaunted originalism), as well as consistency with previous rulings and their reasoning, will go out the window as soon as they become inconvenient to his desired results. And he’s become increasingly impatient, cranky, and nasty in seeking those ends. What’s worse is that several others aren’t that far behind him.

  • Max_1

    ALL YOU OVARIES ARE BELONG TO HOBBY LOBBY

  • Bill_Perdue

    I don’t disagree with your contention that the Congress is irremediably rightwing and say the same about the WH and the courts. Congress, the WH and the courts are paid political prostitutes for the rich.

    I do disagree with the idea that elections change anything. They’re not meant to. They’re a distraction from the real fight which in in the streets, the barracks and on the shop floor.

  • ckg1

    Look at how much of a struggle it took Congress to pass the ACA, which isn’t even close to single payer. Now multiply that many times over if they try to pass single payer with how Congress is set up now.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Thanks – we all have to ramp up our work to support unions and organize the unorganized.

  • BloggerDave

    Great… Thanks for sharing…

  • BloggerDave

    Hey… Thanks for sharing but I’m really not that interested in your topic…

  • Badgerite

    This decision just flies in the face of reality. Alito tried to cover that up by saying corporations are made up of people and therefore a corporation is a person. Which is wholly ridiculous. It is a commercial organization and a legal fiction designed to immunize the corporate owners from personal liability from corporate actions. We have gone into 3/5s a person territory.

  • FLL

    I’m basing my skepticism on Nicho’s enthusiasm for two Reagan appointees: Anthony Kennedy and the district court judge who threw out Prop 8, Vaughn Walker. That is from Nicho’s comments in June, 2013, when DOMA was overturned. I just can’t draw the same conclusion as Nicho concerning these two Reagan appointees. I explain that further in my comment at the top of the thread.

  • Matt Booth

    So.. since hobby lob is now a person(s) not a corporation, they can be sued as individual person(s) no longer protected by the corporation. Like being Sole Proprietor. We can now take their house, car and personal assets. Including that gold crucifix around their neck.

  • FLL

    I agree that Christian fundamentalism is an unresolved issue from the 20th century. I’m more optimistic in the sense that I think the fundies are losing their sway over American culture. I’m sure they’d like to censor television, for instance. The Christian fundies would love to have enough clout to get shows like “True Blood” to… um… tone down their act just a bit, but I think it’s a doomed effort because network ratings and profits are so much higher when the television screenwriters don’t tone down their act. At this point, the slash fanfiction writes itself.

  • Indigo

    The unresolved issues that spilled over from the 20th century are with us in full dress with this strange decision from SCOTUS. Can censorship of the media, movies, television, and print be far behind?

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I’d like to know how many women will have their reproductive futures ruined through untreated fibrosis, ovarian cysts, and ectopic pregnancies. And how many women will die because of this ruling.

  • Indigo

    Actually, both FLL and Nicho are regular commenters. You’re the one I don’t recognize and I’m here every day.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I know you and I don’t agree on everything, but on this I’m totally behind you. We need unions and organized labor more than ever before.

  • FLL

    My only complaint with your post, John, is that you didn’t include quotes from Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s brilliant dissent. Here’s one excerpt:

    Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations… The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents the best of the current Supreme Court. My question is, if Nicho and Bill Perdue are correct in their conclusion that all candidates from the two major parties (e.g., presidential candidates from the two major parties) are equivalent, then that logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Supreme Court justices that they appoint are equivalent. Yet the Supreme Court decisions and dissenting opinions of the last 20 years belie that claim.

  • BloggerDave

    I could care less if you vote or not… And nicho replied TO ME just as you are…

  • BloggerDave

    Again, you need to read more of nicho’s comments for all of this to make sense to you…

  • BloggerDave

    You lose with your hysterics…

  • BloggerDave

    You must be new to this site and have never read nicho’s comments before…

  • BloggerDave

    Instead of Occam’s razor, you should be focusing on the Overton Window especially as it pertains to the teabaggers’ influence on the GOP… Oh and if you think “they have won” then you probably should stay home with nicho…

  • FLL

    Since you’re interested in how this decision affects women’s rights, I’ll put it to you this way. Do you think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s insightful dissent is a step in the right direction. Do you wish there were more like her on the Supreme Court, or do you wish she had never been appointed in the first place?

  • FLL

    As I said in my reply to you above, you may be presuming far too much to call Nicho a self-defeating liberal. How do you know that? Is Nicho under oath? No, he isn’t. He may be content with the prospect of more conservative justices added to the Supreme Court in the future.

  • FLL

    You might be presuming too much here. Nicho will likely tell you that all candidates are equivalent. However, since none of us can read minds, we have no way of knowing if Nicho actually believes that or whether he considers the Hobby Lobby decision a loss or a win. More information is needed since mind-reading is not feasible.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Union busting by both parties now has the support of the Supremes, who, like the other rightwing politicians in the WH, state houses and Congress are trying to break public employee unions. We asked for the Employee Free Choice Act tow years ago. It was defeated and instead got a campaign of union busting by Obama and a score of Republican and Democrat governors.

    Under the banner of $15.00 an hour minimum wage and a union contract millions of big box retail and fast food workers are on the verge of a union organizing drive as powerful as that of the rise of the CIO. http://truth-out.org/news/item/24608-people-make-up-our-city-why-seattles-$15-minimum-wage-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come

    We need unions more than ever.

  • FLL

    Your comment is self-amusement. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with self-amusement. I’m just saying that you don’t seriously think that you’re going to dissuade progressives from voting. Self-amusement has its place.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Your ability to predict the outcome of American politics is badly damaged.

  • Silver_Witch

    If only I could write with the clarity and beauty of your prose. I simply wail and bash my head against the wall.

  • Silver_Witch

    Then why are you posting to Nicho? I think you do try very hard in order to convince yourself that you are doing the right thing voting for the lesser of two evils. Please do continue not trying to convince us.

  • Silver_Witch

    You are a troll. No ONE on this board would stand a witness a rape and walk the other way. You loose with your hyperbole.

  • Silver_Witch

    Vote for whom and for what. They have won…and the only offering our party provides is a “Republican in Democrat Clothing”. It is only going to get worse before it gets better. Perhaps the Christians must see the slippery slope that they have created and perhaps Ocums Razor will sting as it cuts.

  • Silver_Witch

    I guess it is not bad enough that they have not just opened the door but have LITERALLY attacked women. That woman’s rights over their own bodies is sufficient reason to be distressed by this opinion.

    Woman have been trying to get an ERA since the 60’s – good luck with your dream.

  • Colin

    Like I said. They have played their hand well.

  • Colin

    “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intrav…enous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

    “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

    “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” , Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

  • DRoseDARs

    Hi-yoooh

  • trinu

    I wonder how they’ll rule when companies start saying pollution regulations violate their religious beliefs. Will they be smart enough to realize even the rich need to breathe?

  • BloggerDave

    In the same way not bathing makes you smell good…

  • BloggerDave

    Thanks for explaining that you came to your idiotic conclusion because you projected onto Obama something most of us knew he wasn’t… I bet you won’t make that cognitive error again…

  • trinu

    None of Obama’s justices voted in favor of this ruling. As a president, he has many failings, like continuing the NSA mass surveillance, but there is no reason to believe his appointments to the SCOTUS are part of the problem, particularly on this issue.

  • BloggerDave

    You’re helpless and at the mercy of everyone else who votes… Got it…

  • trinu

    Then please enlighten us. How does NOT voting improve things?

  • nicho

    Holding elections is like letting people have guns. If it made any difference to the corporatists, they wouldn’t allow it. Elections are a sham. Anyone who participates is just a useful idiot polishing the potemkin veneer of a phony democracy.

  • nicho

    I voted for Obama. As did a lot of other people. That was an idiotic thing to do. By voting, you’re just a useful idiot letting other idiots think we have a democracy.

  • ckg1

    You’ll NEVER see it happen in this country.

    Not in my lifetime, your kid’s or your grandkid’s.

  • BloggerDave

    That’s your responsibility to figure out…

  • BloggerDave

    Sorry but you got it wrong… I don’t try convince self-defeating liberals any more than I try to convince teabaggers… I simply don’t even bother…

  • BloggerDave

    Yes… You’re also the type who will witnesses a rape 2 feet from you and walk the other way…

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Yeah, but sadly their other ruling today cut the legs out from under labor unions. Now anybody can be a scab -AND- depend on the atrophying negotiating of any union without contributing one dime towards the union itself.

    Basically, the five justices’ ruling was “Go ahead, bleed ‘em dry.”

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Considering the five justice majority chose one particular religious belief — that contraceptives used by women are morally wrong because (1) they’re never used for anything other than slutty behavior and (2) they cause abortions — beliefs that are demonstrably NOT TRUE — and put it right their in the ruling they didn’t mean for it to apply to other religious beliefs such as blood transfusions or vaccinations. Or presumably to those Native Americans who wanted to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. Yeah, it’s an establishment of religion all right.

    Just one set of beliefs carved out as an exemption for ignorant fundamentalist Christians. Who will no doubt be right back at the slop-trough to demand they be allowed to discriminate against gay people.

    More than a few commenters and analysts have noted that if this had been Muslims or Native Americans or Scientologists asking for an exemption of any kind from any law, they’d have been laughed out of court.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Me too. I have a few song playlists named with some variant of “Mood Boost”. I’ve been playing them all afternoon long.

  • Colin

    Of course! But they are ‘good Christians.’ And you know what they say ,”I’m not perfect just saved.” And they use that insanity like a gun.

  • emjayay

    I don’t think you have to have a party of millions or of one to choose who to vote for. Some people actually vote for a candidate of the party they are not registered to.

  • emjayay

    Which would be the ones on the other side of this and many other issues.

  • arcadesproject

    But for whom should we vote? I don’t have a party.

  • arcadesproject

    How is what SCOTUS did in Hobby Lobby not establishment of religion? A corporation can exempt itself from federal law because Religion. (And sex and misogyny. )

  • emjayay

    Yes, my head-in-the-sand position is not only effective but leaves me morally pure. Win-win!

  • Denver Catboy

    Trying to convince nicho that his position is wrong is like trying to tell the sun to go backwards. His mind is already made up. I’ve given up trying.

    I’d put my ear to the ground and if enough people look like they’re going nicho’s route (or worse, deliberately voting GOP), find whatever route you can to get out of the US…and hope we don’t bring down the rest of the world with us. I think it’s going to get real bad here.

  • Bill_Perdue

    This is a very broad decision that opens the door for attacks on the LGBT communities and on people of color. Increasingly, given the right wing nature of the Supremes, the only way to get real protections is by getting union contracts.

    The fight for a robust Civil Rights Amendment with provisions to cover ourselves, people of color and women is now more important than ever as is the fight for socialized medicine and the right to free abortions on demand, fights betrayed by the Obama, the Clintons and by Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

  • Mike F

    More money=more votes. The most money wins, and actual, corporeal citizens suffer.

    Uber-Mensch. Reminds of that SNL skit positing what would happen if Clark Kent and his capsule landed in pre-Nazi Germany.

    Ugh. I need to put this out of my brain for a few hours. My wife will be home from work within the hour, and I don’t need this hideous cloud hanging above my head.

  • Colin

    When the corporate elite began courting the religious right in the 80’s they knew exactly what they were doing. Namely , dividing the country. It was I must admit a master stroke.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    This is the further damning and infuriating hypocrisy: Hobby Lobby’s corporate investments include pharmaceutical companies that manufacture contraceptives. And they import practically all of their crap from China.

    Their religious beliefs apparently extend only to making it more expensive — or impossible in some cases — for women to use a medication prescribed by a doctor. But not so far as to feel it’s wrong to make an investment profit on those same meds, as well as on intrauterine devices and on meds that do cause abortions. Nor any problem with the fact most of the junk they sell comes from China — which has a very active population control regime that includes forced abortions.

  • Colin

    1984 just took a little longer to get here.

  • Colin

    I agree 100% Sis , this government is an arm of corporations and the wealthy period.
    Stripping corporations of ‘personhood’ is a great idea that is not likely to happen. The war on women will continue until it becomes unprofitable. If the ‘good Christians’ at Hobby Lobby suddenly find their ‘christian’ company losing money I will bet my weight in Navy beans they would make some changes rather than risk their wealthy lifestyle.

  • nicho

    And the ability of the corporatist tool Obama to name justices.

  • BloggerDave

    Yes… You win by losing… You’re preferred position…

  • nicho

    I’ll believe corporations are people when one of them pays taxes.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    We’ve already established that corporations aren’t just people. They’re Uber-Mensch.

    Their rights and privileges supersede those of biological mortals. Corporations can commit murder and get away with it. And as we learned not that long ago in Citizens United and follow-up rulings, corporations have MORE right to spend as much as they like to buy elections than human individuals do.

    And as Uber-Mensch, among the rights they enjoy is freedom from imprisonment or execution. Ain’t Sociopathic Capitalism grand?

  • nicho

    Other way around.

  • angryspittle

    Nah, Bush V. Gore. What do you think lead to this court makeup? The ability of W to name justices.

  • BloggerDave

    If you don’t vote in November, you’re an idiot….

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Once again, corporate rights trump individual civil rights — and in this case, it’s entirely because…well, WOMEN.

    We’re apparently supposed to be 2nd class citizens, who are constantly on the urge of rampant naughty sluttishness, and thus must have the risk of unplanned pregnancy to keep us in line. According to one set of judicially accepted religious beliefs.

    That the five MALE justices go out of their way to insist this is only about contraception hammers home their anti-woman intent. Worse, the ruling itself is based on a series of lies wherein (literally) irrational religious belief is permitted to overrule both science and reality itself.

    Many women — myself included — took contraceptive medication for reasons totally unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Doesn’t matter, employers can say I can’t have any because they think it MIGHT be because I’ll use ‘em to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.

    Further, Hobby Lobby and their co-plaintiffs also have claimed repeatedly — again, contrary to fact — that contraceptives cause abortions. They do not. They prevent ovulation. Even the dreaded Plan B ‘emergency contraception’ pill does not cause abortions. It won’t even prevent the implantation of a previously fertilized egg — the religious iconoclasts’ definition of ‘conception’.

    Doesn’t matter. Can’t have it because it causes abortions…even though it doesn’t. For Goddess’ sake, the Justices even admitted in their majority ruling that the beliefs of the now uber-person corporation don’t need to comport with facts. Belief alone is enough.

    I would not have believed that five men could do so much damage to our country… And yeah, anybody who says there is not a war on women’s rights isn’t paying attention. Or it could be just like these misogynists and their mistaken beliefs about how contraceptives work, trying to return women to chattel status is their definition of ‘love.’

    I’m with Nicho. The only way out of this mess is universal healthcare for all. Take control back from the bigots, misogynists, and sociopaths. I’d also suggest we desperately need a constitutional amendment stripping legal constructs such as corporations from any notion or rights of ‘personhood.’

  • FLL

    Extrapolating the court’s logic to argue for an exemption from gay/lesbian anti-discrimination legislation for religious people makes no sense. It would be the same as including an exemption for white supremacists in civil rights legislation. In either case, anyone could say “I’m exempt from anti-discrimination or civil rights legislation because I’m a bigot,” which would make said legislation worthless.

  • Mike F

    Jeebus H. We. Are. Fucked. This is quite possibly the worst decision the Supreme Court has handed down since Dred Scott. Truly, what is the point of separation of church and state–“…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”–if a corporation can essentially claim personhood, and ignore any laws which go against its “religion”? There is so much wrong with this ruling, I can’t even begin to imagine how a group or individual finding themselves on the wrong side of almost any issue, whether they are in the majority or the minority, can begin to find standing to sue for grievances. Obviously, I’m not a lawyer, but this cannot possibly turn out well for women and religious or ethnic minorities of any kind.

    I almost feel physically ill. This decision is rotten to the core.

  • Bose

    And, the talk of available alternatives by which government can ensure that contraceptives are available by some “middle man” mechanism only means the beginning of wing nut conservatives complaining about / campaigning to block public funds ever being used for that purpose. Yikes.

  • Silver_Witch

    No war on women, my ass. No religious favoritism, my ass. If you are White Male Christian – whatever you need honey. If you are any of the “others” then you get what the White Christian Guys says you get.

    And Christian woman are part of the problem. They go along with the gag that a Man can make decisions for woman – cause well we are just not capable.

    Please remember that Hillary Clinton’s favorite book is the Bible. Do we want anyone in the White House who believes the Bible trumps anything.

    When will there be marches for Woman, when will there be a Woman’s Pride Parades. When will we have equal pay, equal rights and freedom from rape.

    Sorry – I am so mad I can hardly see straight. And who wipes these men’s shitty rumps when they were wee – their mothers I am sure and yet they hate women. I DON’T GET IT>

  • Indigo

    I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

  • nicho

    Simple answer. Same as the simple answer to the veterans’ care problem. Single-payer universal health care. Solves so many problems. Corporations, bosses, priests, bishops, ministers, televangelists, whatever should not be in charge of your healthcare.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS