Dems attack as confident Republicans ...

Dems attack as confident Republicans tread carefully after Supreme Court birth control ruling

There are 117 comments on the Squamish Chief story from Jul 1, 2014, titled Dems attack as confident Republicans tread carefully after Supreme Court birth control ruling. In it, Squamish Chief reports that:

Republicans called it a win for religious freedom. The decision of the Supreme Court, they said, is further evidence President Barack Obama's health care law is deeply flawed.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Squamish Chief.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1 Jul 1, 2014
FREEDOM....Rejoice.
.
Looks like Ofagma takes another one on the chin.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#2 Jul 1, 2014
I threw my arms up in joy when I heard that SCOTUS ruled for Hobby Lobby and the American people! Now maybe we can revisit the original decision that stamped approval on this travesty known as Obamacare!
I can't imagine what was said to John Roberts to make him flip his vote, but I think this decision will be black mark on his career.
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#3 Jul 1, 2014
It is the correct ruling. The justices on the negative side of this ruling were ruling against free exercise of religion. Uncommon sense does prevail sometimes. Forcing a company to provide a "benefit" when the "benefit" if goes against a religious belief, is a mark against a constitution right written by James Madison and affirmed by the Constitutional Convention, of a to a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and long before the Warren Court decided there was a right to kill an unborn human being.
GOP-Saboteurs

Cleveland, OH

#4 Jul 1, 2014
Predictable result engineered to reflect selfish political affiliation expectation.??? Supremes paying dividend /kickback to those who put them in power....

_ Our Right-wing Supremes are NOT very dissimilar to Iran's Islamic Ayatollahs. Both entities are primarily guided by religious zealotry, not the constitution....

_ In Iran, Ayatollah is elected
_ In the US, the Supremes are selected by a political party (prone to political hijacking and mischief).

_ Are these GOP activists bent on destroying our faith in the US Judicial system?
GOP-Saboteurs

Cleveland, OH

#5 Jul 1, 2014
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
It is the correct ruling......
If it's SOOOO correct, why those 5 activists deceitfully claim to limit this ruling to only THIS case?
Hoppy Julie fu

Tempe, AZ

#6 Jul 1, 2014
Eighthman wrote:
FREEDOM....Rejoice.
.
Looks like Ofagma takes another one on the chin.
;) Patboy & Bigfoot26262 are working Obama new speecheery!!! ;-000h, does Obama dont know, dont care is funny? correct!!;-000
dont know N dont care

Tempe, AZ

#7 Jul 1, 2014
gettin fun?????????? ;-000
spocko

Oakland, CA

#8 Jul 1, 2014
Eighthman wrote:
FREEDOM....Rejoice.
.
Looks like Ofagma takes another one on the chin.
In reality it is the people that took it on the chin! How exactly does one reconcile a ruling that puts an employer in charge of ones religious practices?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#9 Jul 1, 2014
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
It is the correct ruling. The justices on the negative side of this ruling were ruling against free exercise of religion. Uncommon sense does prevail sometimes. Forcing a company to provide a "benefit" when the "benefit" if goes against a religious belief, is a mark against a constitution right written by James Madison and affirmed by the Constitutional Convention, of a to a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and long before the Warren Court decided there was a right to kill an unborn human being.
Your logic is that of gerbil! Clearly, any type of health issue is between an individual and a doctor and or a priest. Do you really like the idea that your employer can dictate issues regarding your private life?
Bonsai

Carmel, IN

#10 Jul 1, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
In reality it is the people that took it on the chin! How exactly does one reconcile a ruling that puts an employer in charge of ones religious practices?
It's as it should be. The employer is free to decide the kind of benefits it can afford to provide. This is a victory for the people. Govt can't force businesses to include coverages they do not want.
Bonsai

Carmel, IN

#11 Jul 1, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is that of gerbil! Clearly, any type of health issue is between an individual and a doctor and or a priest. Do you really like the idea that your employer can dictate issues regarding your private life?
Health issues are between the doctor and patient...not a business or govt. An employer may or may not choose to provide benefits. That should be their prerogative.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#12 Jul 1, 2014
"If corporations want to be people, they should have to take the rough with the smooth...Female companies, you only get to make 83 cents on the dollar, Sorry Wendy's. I guess Burger King just worked harder. And there are also the little annoyances of being human. So Mr. Peanut, I hope you enjoy attending your friends' shitty improv shows."
spocko

Oakland, CA

#13 Jul 1, 2014
Bonsai wrote:
<quoted text>It's as it should be. The employer is free to decide the kind of benefits it can afford to provide. This is a victory for the people. Govt can't force businesses to include coverages they do not want.
You are a conflicted bubble head, first you claim employers should decide your health issues and in next sentence you claim victory for the people -- which is it moron?
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#14 Jul 1, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
In reality it is the people that took it on the chin! How exactly does one reconcile a ruling that puts an employer in charge of ones religious practices?
An employer is not in charge of ones religious practice.

The GOVERNMENT is in charge. BECAUSE of Obamacare EVERYBODY PAYS for birth control so that any insured woman who wants birth control can get it for FREE.

So even though Hobby Lobby won't be forced to directly pay for free birth control, THAT BIRTH CONTROL will be made available and will be paid for one way or another.(which means you and me and everyone else).
Bonsai

Carmel, IN

#15 Jul 1, 2014
I am offended by all the sluzbucket libs who pretend women earn so much less. Considering most women spend less time than men working should be the first clue. When they take time off to bear and care for children, that is going to have an effect.....as it should. When you average all those women who are working pt during part of their careers, the pay scale will be different.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#16 Jul 1, 2014
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
An employer is not in charge of ones religious practice.
).
In this particular case it is! How is this a victory for the people when it clearly will affect low income, working women only?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#17 Jul 1, 2014
Bonsai wrote:
I am offended by all the sluzbucket libs who pretend women earn so much less. Considering most women spend less time than men working should be the first clue. When they take time off to bear and care for children, that is going to have an effect.....as it should. When you average all those women who are working pt during part of their careers, the pay scale will be different.
I'm offende by your stupidity ye moron!!

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#18 Jul 1, 2014
GOP-Saboteurs wrote:
_ Are these GOP activists bent on destroying our faith in the US Judicial system?
No, that's Eric Holder's job.
Bonsai

Carmel, IN

#19 Jul 1, 2014
Low end working women haven't been affected with this case. They get contraception through the govt already. It's the whiney entitled liberal hags who want everyone else to cover their costs. They expect the govt to educate and raise their brats as well.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#20 Jul 1, 2014
No one is denying a woman access to abortion pills. The government can fund them under Title 10, just as they have done in the past.

A non elected bureaucrat crafted this portion of the law. Not even King Obama will be allowed to make law, if SCOTUS gets their hands on it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min TabLies 286,681
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Incognito4Ever 1,580,353
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 45 min Food Stamp Rico 1,208
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 37,259
News Illinois conservative group's cartoon sparks ra... 1 hr blagovich hodgkinson 7
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Atticus Tiberius ... 242,531
News 'God has given Trump authority to take out Kim ... 5 hr Just Think 224
More from around the web