Best
1079 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    Let me get this right -- we will fight to the point of destroying the country to support every woman having free methods of preventing conception, but let cancer and heart patients die because they can't afford the medicines and procedures.

    Other than campaigning for the November elections with division and hate, how can any logic explain that?
  • #277
    !
    Nah, fight to preserve a healthy separation of church and state. The way this Court is going it has become possible now for heart and cancer patients to die needlessly because of religion beliefs that don't allow for medical treatment.

    This Court has truly welcomed the snake handlers, anti-blood transfusioners, anti-blacks, and anti-gays to rejection based on someone's religion beliefs.
  • #279
    !
    Denying every option of BC is a War on Women...don't you know? Dems use that narrative to "mobilize" the democrat base of women voters to ensure that they maintain power. And denying costly, but life saving medication to heart disease and cancer patience is a cost savings measure. Let them die young and cheaply. Welcome to State Run Medicine. Where evil, incompetent idiots like Sebellius get to make the life and death decisions.
  • R Load more replies

  • #163
    !
    Who really cares what this old hide thinks?!? With her entitlement and socialst bent, I'm SURE she was married to Karl, It sure wasn't Thomas.....<chuckle>
  • #411
    !
    For years we've heard "keep your laws out of my bedroom." That's fine. It is hypocritical though, that they want HL's hands in their medicine cabinet.
  • #440
    !
    @LEC

    I never thought it died. Not to worry though, your not being dragged back to the stone age with Fred Flintstone awaiting with a club and a handful of your hair. <wink>
  • R Load more replies

  • #52
    !
    @danikate "corporations are people" has been held, to a greater or lesser extent, in this country under legal precedent and proceedings for well over a century (possibly back to shortly after our founding, though I am not as versed that far back as I am to the late 1800s).

    *SHOULD* they be considered "people"? That's an entirely different question.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    The only thing I can agree with Ginsburg on here is that it shouldn't be about "religious objections."

    Nobody owes anyone else "free" health care, medicine, contraception, etc., nor should anyone be required to cite the orders of an unseen boss in the sky as a basis for rejecting such an obligation.
  • #72
    !
    Yes, it's about the insurance that the people are paying for (if by "insurance" we mean "pre-paid health care" rather than real insurance).

    The people who are offering and/or paying for the policy should be free to decide between themselves what that policy will cover. It's none of the government's business.
  • #107
    !
    There is no such thing as free health care, even for employees. They have to pay for it through deductions in their paycheck. If they are paying for it, then they should have a right to choose what they want.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    Yes, what a shock from a diehard liberal judge. She's against anything that doesn't agree with her personal thoughts, not with what's right. The SCOTUS did the right thing, now she should live with that. We have to live with Obamacare because they voted it was a tax, and that was because of a conservative judge.
  • #88
    !
    @MarkJM Except the rights of worker to not be penalized for seeing religion differently than their employer. Once again, you conservatives are so busy handing power over to business, you have forgotten entirely about the rights of the laborer.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    !
    wow... another thought. it's simply amazing how you just keep on popping them out today. too bad that none of them offer anything intelligent to the discussion.
  • #67
    !
    @dances-weebles If you'll recall not to long ago when she was visiting a country in Africa that was working on their own constitution that they should NOT pattern it after Ours!
  • #143
    !
    @avengah @CaryNickel

    Ugh...it is the people like you that really annoy me. I refrain from calling any judge an activist no matter if I agree with them or not.
    They interpret the constitution as they see it should be, for better or for worse, and no matter what they are always going to piss off a select group of people.
    So why don't you both just jump off your high horses.
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Contraception is actually not a treatment for a medical condition; it does not meet the criterion of "medical necessity". It is in the same category as cosmetic surgery.
  • #21
    !
    Actually, I do support taxpayer supported birth control for everyone and abortion on demand, especially because it is NOT a medically necessary procedure.
  • R Load more replies

  • #25
    !
    "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,"
    This statement is , in the spirit of the law that requires "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" a blatant, bald-faced lie. She, like her leftist friends conveniently refuse to acknowledge the vast number of commercial enterprises and the more than sufficient types of birth controls EXCLUDED by the ruling as well as the vast number of other FREE sources of the four affected methods. Disgusting, but that's how the progressives do it -- deceive, deceive, deceive!!!
  • #95
    !
    The only person your deceiving is yourself. Check the conservative news sites on just how narrow they view this and exactly which cases they are already planning to use this ruling for. You know things are never laid to rest.
  • #130
    !
    "refuse to acknowledge the vast number of commercial enterprises and the more than sufficient types of birth controls EXCLUDED by the ruling as well as the vast number of other FREE sources of the four affected methods."
    Please explain this sentence it is very confusing and show proof of statement.
  • #301
    !
    Speedieg: My post was specifically referring to the Justice's statement , as well as those of a great many liberal pundits, which simply and intentionally, does not state the truth. In the world of honest folks this is known as a LIE!
    DeathToVirtue: 1)Please read the ruling -- I am not paid to do you homework! 2) If my statement needs "proof" and "clarification" after you have read the ruling I suggest you further your knowledge and understanding of the English language.
  • #83
    !
    She's right--allowing corporations to opt out for religious reasons is a huge can of worms.

    When a Jehovah's Witnesses corporation refuses to cover blood transfusions for religious reasons, and someone dies because of it, then you'll realize how stupid this Hobby Lobby decision was; because it's the exact same reasoning for both.

    When you're willing to go to any lengths to get a part of something you don't like repealed, even when you don't care about the reasoning, this is what you get. You should have just waited until you got the White House.
  • #205
    !
    "When a Jehovah's Witnesses corporation refuses to cover blood transfusions for religious reasons, and someone dies because of it, then you'll realize how stupid this Hobby Lobby decision was; because it's the exact same reasoning for both."

    In the majority opinion, Alito insisted that would not happen. His legal reasoning for why a Jehovah's Witnesses-owned corporation wouldn't qualify for the same kind of exemption that he granted to Hobby Lobby? He didn't have one. He said they wouldn't qualify, just because. Apparently only religious beliefs that the conservative SCOTUS majority agrees with can be counted as "sincerely held".
  • #208
    !
    You understand that the issue here was the Hobby Lobby does provided coverage for 16 types of birth control, but was objecting to 4 of them that could result in the destruction of a fertilized embryo? It's like the left doesn't even understand what is going on here.
  • #299
    !
    @Yank I don't think they cause the destruction of an embryo, I think they keep the egg from implanting in the womb; hardly the same thing as an abortion.
  • #345
    !
    no actually passing any law, that is untrue to G-D'S law is the subtle can of talking worms of the field. you have a muslim for president, who thinks it is ok to lie like the devil in order to destroy you all in this nation.
  • R Load more replies

  • #312
    !
    First of all, Hobby Lobby's objection was to abortifacients, not contraceptives. I don't like being asked to help pay for someone else's sex life but I mortally object to paying for abortifacients and abortion. You can't take consequences out of sex no matter how much money you throw at it.
  • #113
    !
    Contraception is a personal choice and used to prevent pregnancy and in some cases to abort a pregnancy. The personal cost of contraception is minimal to those who wish to practice it. The U.S. Constitution clearly protects religious freedom in Amendment I. There is no such protection or provision for free or subsidized contraception. The Obamacare provision would have required one person to pay for the contraception needs of another. Since contraception, abortion and even extra-martial sex are against many religious beliefs and teachings, the Obamacare mandate for contraception coverage flies in the face of our 1st Amendment freedom. Subsidizing such behavior would be abhorrent to those who hold those beliefs.
    The SCOTUS ruling simply means that those with religious objections to that mandate are exempt from providing that coverage. Simply put: Congress can not make a law that is contrary to the protections of the Bill of Rights since government interests do not trump our individual Rights.
  • #92
    !
    While I don't agree with anything that schriveled up old hag has to say I only hope she lives long enough for a Republican president to replace her.
  • #632
    !
    Justice Scalia is in poorer health than Justice Ginsburg--he is a cranked, senile old man who needs a eldercare provider not a judge's gavel.
    Hillary Clinton is going to win the Presidency in 2016 and nominate President Barack Obama for the next vacant seat on the U S Supreme Court ! That'll be true poetic justice for our POTUS against the Republican tea bagger mob.
  • #769
    !
    @frontporchdem
    Sorry, but Obama would never take the pay cut. Nice gay slur towards the Tea Party, though, it takes real intellectual capacity to come up with something like that!
  • #19
    !
    Ginsburg is right this ruling opens up all kinds of laws to be disobeyed because of mythological
    beliefs. We will be seeing more and more people using antiquated religious beliefs to try to keep us all in backwards stagnate society. Time to evolve some more Christians.
  • #347
    !
    Key point folks: there are contraceptives (conception blockers), and abortifacients (life destroyers). NO ONE should have to pay for someone else's CHOICE to end a life through abortifacients or abortion. Look it up...the media certainly isn't. Choose life and God bless.
  • #273
    !
    I think Thomas and Scalia are worse. I do sometimes agree with Ginsburg when I review her reasoning on an issue.
  • #410
    !
    @BritAustenpal Good for you. Most people, especially posters here, never consider the reasoning for decisions.
  • #940
    !
    Clinton had to appoint her (she had photos of the two of them) These photos were considered so embarrassing that he knew he could never be taken seriously again.
  • #119
    !
    The neocon hard-right Christian conservatives love this ruling, until it comes down one day to a private company run by Muslims who want to enact their religious morality on Christian employees. They will scream how this is a free country and people have religious rights and freedoms of expressions and speech, and that this is a war on Christianity. Yep, I can see that happening.
  • #587
    !
    And you as an individual have the right NOT to work for that Muslim company. No one is holding a gun to these people's head forcing them to work for a Christian based company.
  • #668
    !
    @LGRepublican You've completely missed the point. It is about the rights of the people versus someone's religious beliefs.

    What if my religious beliefs are based on the 10 Commandments and thous shall not kill. Can I opt out of using my tax dollars for supporting wars and guns and killing?
  • #1065
    !
    @Crashd1 You're confusing private money and tax dollars. There are MANY things I'd love to opt out of when it comes to government programs but you have the choice of who to work for. Besides, if an employer's plan isn't to one's liking, they can always go to the wonderful healthcare.gov to select any plan they wish.
  • #117
    !
    The score after this bogus decision.... American Taliban 1..... women of America 0. Women will remember this in November as the right slowly sinks further into the abyss.
  • #194
    !
    Or maybe women will see through all the leftist lies and see this as Sandra Fluke 2.0.
  • #274
    !
    "Women will remember this in November as the right slowly sinks further into the abyss."
    There is a bright spot in all this!
  • #291
    !
    your fist mistake, is considering that subtle talking beast of the fields are called as men or women by G-D. or that anyone that is seduced by them, are considered as such also. how can about 7billion enemies of G-D, all be so totally wrong?
  • #310
    !
    Yes, it is getting more and more difficult to see why American women want to get married, when American men care so little about them and treat them as brood mares rather than people.
  • #339
    !
    @BritAustenpal - That is absolute asinine thinking. Believe me: My wife knows that I treat her with loving tenderness and care. I do my best for her. She is my "better half." Guess what? She is more Conservative than I am -- and she HATES abortion.

    Like many millions of other American women, my wife celebrated this decision.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post