Today Five Members Of The U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer To A Theocracy
The case came to the attention of the Supremes when the Affordable Care Act included this mandate:
Birth control benefits:
Plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace must cover contraceptive methods and counseling for all women, as prescribed by a health care provider.
These plans must cover the services without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible when they are provided by an in-network provider.Covered contraceptive methods:
All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:
- Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
- Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
- Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
- Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
- Sterilization procedures
- Patient education and counseling
Plans aren’t required to cover:
- Drugs to induce abortions
- Services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies
Hobby Lobby argues that they don’t want to pay for any services that might cause the end of life. They consider FDA-approved morning-after pills–like Plan B–abortion pills, even though the pills have to be used within 72 hours after intercourse. Within three days. They consider certain IUDs as obstacles in the path of fertilized eggs. (Fertilized eggs are apparently babies in their eyes.)
If the owners of Hobby Lobby want to believe that life begins at conception, let them. It’s a free country. They can believe anything they want to believe, religious or otherwise. What they can’t do–or shouldn’t be able to do–is to push their religious beliefs on their employees. One of the benefits of the newly minted Affordable Care Act was a mandate to provide free contraceptive care for women who need it. Hobby Lobby balked and decided they shouldn’t have to pay for something that might keep women from having babies.
When the Right Wing came up with the loony notion that life begins at conception, they opened the doors to misusing religion to force women to give up the ability to forestall pregnancies. There is no legitimate religious basis for denying women the right to free contraception. None at all.
Contraception isn’t, by definition, abortion, except in the minds of those looking for any excuse to involve themselves in deciding for women when they should have children. When contraception is the obvious and most humane solution to unwanted pregnancies, there is no humane reason not to make it available and free.
So what I’m seeing from those five men on the Supreme Court is yet another example of ideology as law. (“Corporations are people” being the most jaw-dropping and the most precedent-forming. Hobby Lobby couldn’t have won without it.) They’re treading on dangerous territory. They’re giving judicial approval to religious solutions for societal issues, and, as the judicial branch of a secular government, they’re knowingly abusing their authority.
But worse, they’re telling women that when it comes to reproductive protections, religious theory trumps their right not to be burdened by the worry of unintended pregnancies.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent, said this:
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.
We are a country made up of diverse cultures and religions. We welcome them, we encourage them, we give them the freedom to live within their own cultures and worship within their own religions. At the same time, we expect the freedom not to have to follow along.
But this Supreme Court, in the name of free speech, just forced us to give in to specific religious beliefs. There was a time when that would have been inconceivable.
Lord knows, we were safer then.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Ramona Grigg
Ramona Grigg is a freelance columnist and blogger living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.. She owns the liberal-leaning blog, Ramona's Voices, and is a contributor to Liberaland and on the masthead at Dagblog.
Anomaly 100 June 30th, 2014 at 22:23
Well it’s worked out well in the Middle East, so why not here, too. Just ask ISIS. They love a theocratic government.
Tommy6860 June 30th, 2014 at 23:12
I can see it now, the Holy Constitution and the Ten Amendments. It’ll be “holy hell”!
granpa.usthai July 1st, 2014 at 05:10
not if you have no intention of sailing beyond the horizon.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 23:46
Darrell Isis?
Anomaly 100 June 30th, 2014 at 22:23
Well it’s worked out well in the Middle East, so why not here, too. Just ask ISIS. They love a theocratic government.
Tommy6860 June 30th, 2014 at 23:12
I can see it now, the Holy Constitution and the Ten Amendments. It’ll be “holy hell”!
granpa.usthai July 1st, 2014 at 05:10
not if you have no intention of sailing beyond the horizon.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 23:46
Darrell Isis?
Um Cara June 30th, 2014 at 22:46
*Today Five Members Of The U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer To A Theocracy*
I’m not happy about this decision, but your headline is a bit of a stretch. Their decision in no way changed our democracy into a theocracy, nor moved us closer to one.
Let’s take the glass half full approach here. I’m looking forward to the government now allowing Rastafarian owned businesses give away a pound of cannabis with each pound of coffee sold!
Dwendt44 June 30th, 2014 at 23:16
A corporate theocracy if you please. Some of our largest corporations are closely held. Wal-mart, Koch Industries, etc…
When corporations have the same or better ‘rights’ than individuals, freedom is in danger. This is only the first step and some corporations which now suddenly have strong religious beliefs are, if they haven’t already, filing suit to insure their freedom to discriminate issues, options, and choices of their employees.
Tommy6860 June 30th, 2014 at 23:25
Agreed, this is similar to the corporate personhood ruling by SCOTUS.
Eric Trommater June 30th, 2014 at 23:56
Yeah people who say that there is no difference between the two parties and our loonies on the left are just as wacked as their loonies on the right usually point to headlines like this one. The article itself was actually closer to the the actual facts of the case but it all seems to hinge on the same “slippery slope” argument I spend so much time making fun of conservatives for.
Um Cara June 30th, 2014 at 22:46
*Today Five Members Of The U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer To A Theocracy*
I’m not happy about this decision, but your headline is a bit of a stretch. Their decision in no way changed our democracy into a theocracy, nor moved us closer to one.
Let’s take the glass half full approach here. I’m looking forward to the government now allowing Rastafarian owned businesses give away a pound of cannabis with each pound of coffee sold!
Dwendt44 June 30th, 2014 at 23:16
A corporate theocracy if you please. Some of our largest corporations are closely held. Wal-mart, Koch Industries, etc…
When corporations have the same or better ‘rights’ than individuals, freedom is in danger. This is only the first step and some corporations which now suddenly have strong religious beliefs are, if they haven’t already, filing suit to insure their freedom to discriminate issues, options, and choices of their employees.
Tommy6860 June 30th, 2014 at 23:25
Agreed, this is similar to the corporate personhood ruling by SCOTUS.
Eric Trommater June 30th, 2014 at 23:56
Yeah people who say that there is no difference between the two parties and our loonies on the left are just as wacked as their loonies on the right usually point to headlines like this one. The article itself was actually closer to the the actual facts of the case but it all seems to hinge on the same “slippery slope” argument I spend so much time making fun of conservatives for.
pcinsc June 30th, 2014 at 23:00
read what National Catholic Reporter said about the abotifacients
“The HHS mandate allows women free access to all FDA-approved forms of
contraception. This includes the IUDs (intrauterine devices), the drug
Plan B (levonorgestrel) and a new drug called Ella (ulipristal acetate),
which came on the market in 2010. Church officials and others have
argued that because these three contraceptives are abortifacients, the
government is forcing them to participate in the distribution of devices
and drugs that cause abortion.
The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that
the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the
market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is
no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.There
is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486
(mifepristone) and is not on the FDA’s list of approved contraception.”
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt
pcinsc June 30th, 2014 at 23:00
read what National Catholic Reporter said about the abotifacients
“The HHS mandate allows women free access to all FDA-approved forms of
contraception. This includes the IUDs (intrauterine devices), the drug
Plan B (levonorgestrel) and a new drug called Ella (ulipristal acetate),
which came on the market in 2010. Church officials and others have
argued that because these three contraceptives are abortifacients, the
government is forcing them to participate in the distribution of devices
and drugs that cause abortion.
The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that
the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the
market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is
no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.There
is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486
(mifepristone) and is not on the FDA’s list of approved contraception.”
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker June 30th, 2014 at 23:03
The only bright side I can hope for from this ridiculous theocratic decision is that it gets Democrats and most importantly women out to the polls for midterm elections.
mea_mark July 1st, 2014 at 09:04
If the Supreme Court Judges who voted for this violated the constitution they might be subject to impeachment proceedings and removed from the court. That could be a good thing.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker June 30th, 2014 at 23:03
The only bright side I can hope for from this ridiculous theocratic decision is that it gets Democrats and most importantly women out to the polls for midterm elections.
mea_mark July 1st, 2014 at 09:04
If the Supreme Court Judges who voted for this violated the constitution they might be subject to impeachment proceedings and removed from the court. That could be a good thing.
Ronald Louis Ramsey June 30th, 2014 at 23:16
Today’s action by the Supreme Court of United States of America is not following the Constitution of United States. This spiritual tyranny that is forced upon the company’s employees should be a warning to us all, that the owners of this company freedom of religion is being rammed down the American public throat, with the disregard of other peoples own religious beliefs, their general health care and security.
The Conservative Christian Fundamentalists they are trying to establish their version of a theocracy that the founding fathers have rejected and seen it as a threat, and that would limit their version of freedom for this country. I have found some writings of what the founders had in mind on religion for this country.
·
Quote:“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
· “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
· The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
· I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
· “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,
· · The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
This is where I found information
35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate-
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/
john tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:16
And what about the “go it alone” tyranny of Obama? Aren’t` you concerned about hat?
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:01
What about the sheer stupidity of Republicans refusing to work with the President?
Ronald Louis Ramsey June 30th, 2014 at 23:16
Today’s action by the Supreme Court of United States of America is not following the Constitution of United States. This spiritual tyranny that is forced upon the company’s employees should be a warning to us all, that the owners of this company freedom of religion is being rammed down the American public throat, with the disregard of other peoples own religious beliefs, their general health care and security.
The Conservative Christian Fundamentalists they are trying to establish their version of a theocracy that the founding fathers have rejected and seen it as a threat, and that would limit their version of freedom for this country. I have found some writings of what the founders had in mind on religion for this country.
·
Quote:“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
· “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
· The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
· I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
· “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,
· · The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
This is where I found information
35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate-
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/
john tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:16
And what about the “go it alone” tyranny of Obama? Aren’t` you concerned about hat?
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:01
What about the sheer stupidity of Republicans refusing to work with the President?
Sunka July 1st, 2014 at 00:21
The notion that God gives a rip whether or not women take birth control pills strikes me as a very limited and childish vision of the Creator. This is the same antiquated religious idiocy that has dominated this planet for generations. This has nothing to do with “religious freedom.” It’s about control and domination of women first of all. Secondly it’s about pushing back Obamacare. Third, it’s about the Scotus claiming “human rights” for corporations while the rights of actual humans are trampled and discarded. Let’s hope women will stand up against this in droves!
Sunka July 1st, 2014 at 00:21
The notion that God gives a rip whether or not women take birth control pills strikes me as a very limited and childish vision of the Creator. This is the same antiquated religious idiocy that has dominated this planet for generations. This has nothing to do with “religious freedom.” It’s about control and domination of women first of all. Secondly it’s about pushing back Obamacare. Third, it’s about the Scotus claiming “human rights” for corporations while the rights of actual humans are trampled and discarded. Let’s hope women will stand up against this in droves!
arc99 July 1st, 2014 at 00:25
When then-governor Mike Huckabee signed a similar bill in Arkansas mandating contraception coverage, there was nary a peep from the right wing.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the right wing’s ongoing hatred of any and all things advocated by the President.
Right wingers, where were you when Gov. Huckabee signed this law? I cannot wait to read the lame rationalizations for your hypocrisy on this one.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2005/R/Acts/Act2217.pdf
For An Act To Be Entitled
AN ACT TO CREATE THE EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION
INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE ACT.
Subtitle
THE EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND
CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE ACT.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
john tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:13
Hey, how about some equity in the tax code? That’s right, too many people have a free ride w hen it comes to this important issue.
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:03
“Corporations are people, my friends”, those people?
mea_mark July 1st, 2014 at 09:09
And the rich don’t pay their fair share allowing the burden to fall on a shrinking middle class allowing the wealthiest people to continue to extract wealth from the economy.
arc99 July 1st, 2014 at 00:25
When then-governor Mike Huckabee signed a similar bill in Arkansas mandating contraception coverage, there was nary a peep from the right wing.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the right wing’s ongoing hatred of any and all things advocated by the President.
Right wingers, where were you when Gov. Huckabee signed this law? I cannot wait to read the lame rationalizations for your hypocrisy on this one.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2005/R/Acts/Act2217.pdf
For An Act To Be Entitled
AN ACT TO CREATE THE EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION
INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE ACT.
Subtitle
THE EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND
CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE ACT.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
john tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:13
Hey, how about some equity in the tax code? That’s right, too many people have a free ride w hen it comes to this important issue.
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:03
“Corporations are people, my friends”, those people?
mea_mark July 1st, 2014 at 09:09
And the rich don’t pay their fair share allowing the burden to fall on a shrinking middle class allowing the wealthiest people to continue to extract wealth from the economy.
Ron Jackson July 1st, 2014 at 01:13
This all part of the right wings views about women and their roles in society. Never forget that right wingers view rape as a form of love,and if a woman becomes pregnant they believe that she should be forced to give birth. It should come as no surprise to anyone that right wingers view a woman having control over her body, as an act of going against their right wing view of christianity and their belief their god put women here to sever the needs of man,and as such man has a right to rule over women,this is nothing more that right wing theocracy being imposed off on America. These same right wingers that are now cheering,will be crying foul when a Muslim corporation seeks to impose their religious views off on their white female christian employees by telling them that they must cover their head when they are at work,that is when you will here the cries that sharia law is being imposed off on Americans,thanks to this decision by the right wingers on the supreme court there will be no stopping sharia law from being imposed.
John Tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:11
What a poor example. You equate some Muslim company that would force non-Muslims to wear a head covering with a law that had forced someone to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one is saying that women can not use contraceptives, they just have to pay for it themselves. But of course, we know that it is liberalism that always seeks others to pay for what the liberal desires.
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:08
How about some closely held company that doesn’t want to pay for Viagra for their male employees?
Ron Jackson July 1st, 2014 at 01:13
This all part of the right wings views about women and their roles in society. Never forget that right wingers view rape as a form of love,and if a woman becomes pregnant they believe that she should be forced to give birth. It should come as no surprise to anyone that right wingers view a woman having control over her body, as an act of going against their right wing view of christianity and their belief their god put women here to sever the needs of man,and as such man has a right to rule over women,this is nothing more that right wing theocracy being imposed off on America. These same right wingers that are now cheering,will be crying foul when a Muslim corporation seeks to impose their religious views off on their white female christian employees by telling them that they must cover their head when they are at work,that is when you will here the cries that sharia law is being imposed off on Americans,thanks to this decision by the right wingers on the supreme court there will be no stopping sharia law from being imposed.
John Tarter July 1st, 2014 at 07:11
What a poor example. You equate some Muslim company that would force non-Muslims to wear a head covering with a law that had forced someone to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one is saying that women can not use contraceptives, they just have to pay for it themselves. But of course, we know that it is liberalism that always seeks others to pay for what the liberal desires.
Saint_Augustine July 1st, 2014 at 08:08
How about some closely held company that doesn’t want to pay for Viagra for their male employees?
Thunderhead July 1st, 2014 at 03:46
It’s quite consistent with the emotion based policies of today’s GOP. Is anyone really surprised?
Thunderhead July 1st, 2014 at 03:46
It’s quite consistent with the emotion based policies of today’s GOP. Is anyone really surprised?
Michael Lewinski July 1st, 2014 at 04:32
Let’s see if I have this straight. The Supreme Court ruled that persons of faith don’t have to pay for abortion inducing drugs, and that translates into a war on females who still can purchase them with their own money.
granpa.usthai July 1st, 2014 at 05:22
consider it as punching a hole through the base of an earthen dam, during a monsoon downpour – before the flash floods coming down the channels that empty into the lake that is on the other side of the dam.
Roctuna July 1st, 2014 at 08:29
No, you don’t have it straight. There is no abortion without pregnancy. None of HL’s proscribed contraceptives end a pregnancy. The whole ridiculous ruling pivots on the idea that “life” begins at conception, ignoring the fact that millions of fertilized eggs fail to implant every year. What about those “lives”? Those cells are not humans, they’re zygotes. There’s no medical basis for the xian concept of human life before pregnancy. It’s simply a mechanism for repressed xian fundies to control other peoples lives, and these 5 grumpy old catholic men are examples.
Michael Lewinski July 2nd, 2014 at 11:42
Has a zygote ever developed into anything other that a human being? A rose is a rose!
Roctuna July 2nd, 2014 at 14:50
But a seed is not a rose. The operative word is “developed”. Yes there is potential, but cells in the diploid phase and zygotes are not people yet. There is no brain, there is no person. There is a symbiont within the body of a woman who may or may not want to, or be able to, support that symbiont.
Ramona July 2nd, 2014 at 19:08
And an egg is just an egg. Even a fertilized egg is still just an egg. Taking a morning-after pill within 72 hours of intercourse does not mean a child has been murdered.
If Hobby Lobby’s religion says it’s so, it should have been up to the omnipotent Supreme Court to set them straight The fact that they didn’t should send chills up and down the spines of every American who still had high hopes for a return to a sane and democratic political system.
Michael Lewinski July 1st, 2014 at 04:32
Let’s see if I have this straight. The Supreme Court ruled that persons of faith don’t have to pay for abortion inducing drugs, and that translates into a war on females who still can purchase them with their own money.
granpa.usthai July 1st, 2014 at 05:22
consider it as punching a hole through the base of an earthen dam, during a monsoon downpour – before the flash floods coming down the channels that empty into the lake that is on the other side of the dam.
Roctuna July 1st, 2014 at 08:29
No, you don’t have it straight. There is no abortion without pregnancy. None of HL’s proscribed contraceptives end a pregnancy. The whole ridiculous ruling pivots on the idea that “life” begins at conception, ignoring the fact that millions of fertilized eggs fail to implant every year. What about those “lives”? Those cells are not humans, they’re zygotes. There’s no medical basis for the xian concept of human life before pregnancy. It’s simply a mechanism for repressed xian fundies to control other peoples lives, and these 5 grumpy old catholic men are examples.
Michael Lewinski July 2nd, 2014 at 11:42
Has a zygote ever developed into anything other that a human being? A rose is a rose!
Roctuna July 2nd, 2014 at 14:50
But a seed is not a rose. The operative word is “developed”. Yes there is potential, but cells in the diploid phase and zygotes are not people yet. There is no brain, there is no person. There is a symbiont within the body of a woman who may or may not want to, or be able to, support that symbiont.
Ramona July 2nd, 2014 at 19:08
And an egg is just an egg. Even a fertilized egg is still just an egg. Taking a morning-after pill within 72 hours of intercourse does not mean a child has been murdered.
If Hobby Lobby’s religion says it’s so, it should have been up to the omnipotent Supreme Court to set them straight The fact that they didn’t should send chills up and down the spines of every American who still had high hopes for a return to a sane and democratic political system.