Dems attack as confident Republicans ...

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

There are 52 comments on the Fox News story from Jul 1, 2014, titled Dems attack as confident Republicans tread carefully after Supreme Court birth control ruling. In it, Fox News reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Delbert

Newport News, VA

#50 Jul 4, 2014
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you at least attempt to understand the ruling?
Hobby Lobby's health care benefits provide over a dozen types of BC for their employees. The ones to which they objected were four formulas that can abort a fertilized egg.
Thanks to President Clinton, there was a bill passed and signed by him that allows for religious objection in certain circumstances and cases, like the Hobby Lobby case.
Thanks to our current President and one of many changes he made to the Health Care bill without going through congress, exceptions were allowed for certain groups (like non-profit organizations), in which cases the pills in question must be provided by the insurance companies rather than the employer, and the insurance companies have to cover the cost without passing it on the employers or employees. So they are still available to any who want them, it's just that Hobby Lobby can't be forced to provide them.
While the pesky details of the ruling may be beyond you, most of us women have managed to understand it. And we're sick to death of certain politicians treating us as though we're idiots and ignorant enough to fall for all the hyperbole and hand wringing.
Hillary doesn't stand a chance.
Gullible and naïve idealist. What now prevents religions groups who are employers from suing to prevent from hiring Gay individuals because of their religious conscious? The activist conservatives just amended our constitution. That's not the purpose of the SCOTUS. They have over reached with this decision and chipped away the constitutional provision of equal protection.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#51 Jul 4, 2014
Delbert wrote:
<quoted text>The chance Hillary has is any GOP candidate
Really, which GOP candidate is responsible for four deaths due to inaction, and lying to the public and worse, lying to the parents at the Airport as the bodies were unloaded.
Delbert

Newport News, VA

#53 Jul 4, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, which GOP candidate is responsible for four deaths due to inaction, and lying to the public and worse, lying to the parents at the Airport as the bodies were unloaded.
That's imaginary. Republicans and Bush are responsible for massive killings of American Troops and Iraqis all due to the lies told by Bush to drag America into a needless war in Iraq. The Repubs aren't running against Democrats they are running against that perception.
Debi

Mannford, OK

#54 Jul 4, 2014
The owners of Corporations won't be and are not so confident. You don't see them making comments about this ruling. They see the folly of this short sighted, activist ruling.

The benefit of incorporating is to protect the owners, their homes, incomes and property. Their assets are separate from the Corporation, and as such are not personally liable should the Corporation go bankrupt, or some disaster like happened in West, Texas. There the Corporation only held a million in liability insurance. The rebuilding of the town and the loss of life cost more than the liability insurance. But since it was a Corporation, the owners protected their homes, and all personal assets.

So now, thanks to the Supreme Court, those Corporations are their owners, not separate individuals. They have free speech with their money, and now they hold the owners religious belief as well. So, no longer are they separate.

This activist ruling just blew a hole in Corporate law, even if it didn't intend to.


Delbert

Newport News, VA

#55 Jul 4, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless gays are needing abortions the ruling doesn't affect anyone for birth control.
The day after that decision religious groups have petitioned for the religious freedom to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring practices. The flood gates that chip away constitutional freedoms and personal liberty has begun.
Delbert

Newport News, VA

#56 Jul 4, 2014
Debi wrote:
The owners of Corporations won't be and are not so confident. You don't see them making comments about this ruling. They see the folly of this short sighted, activist ruling.
The benefit of incorporating is to protect the owners, their homes, incomes and property. Their assets are separate from the Corporation, and as such are not personally liable should the Corporation go bankrupt, or some disaster like happened in West, Texas. There the Corporation only held a million in liability insurance. The rebuilding of the t sown and the loss of life cost more than the liability insurance. But since it was a Corporation, the owners protected their homes, and all personal assets.
So now, thanks to the Supreme Court, those Corporations are their owners, not separate individuals. They have free speech with their money, and now they hold the owners religious belief as well. So, no longer are they separate.
This activist ruling just blew a hole in Corporate law, even if it didn't intend to.
Activist rulings have consequences. There are many with this rulings. The guillotine swings both ways.
Debi

Mannford, OK

#57 Jul 4, 2014
Delbert wrote:
<quoted text>
Activist rulings have consequences. There are many with this rulings. The guillotine swings both ways.
I will sit back and smile as these "closely held" corporations have to lose their "personal" closely held millions. They will no longer be shielded as being separate from their "closely held" corporations. When their Corporations go bankrupt, creditors can go after them personally. When they have oil spills, pollute our water, or blow up our towns, they don't get to walk away with their personal millions in tact. Yes, corporations are people, and no longer a separate "person" than their owners.
Who

Grand Rapids, MI

#58 Jul 4, 2014
Where's that loud mouthed marine fraud pat?
Sonofabitch hasn't answered my question!
I don't really expect an answer from a good-for-nothing piece of shit liberal like his worthless ass, they can never give an answer because they're too damn ignorant.
All idiots like him know how to do is repeat what they hear from the (N)azi (B)roadcasting (C)ompany or "read" in the bluffington compost.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#59 Jul 5, 2014
Delbert wrote:
<quoted text>
That's imaginary. Republicans and Bush are responsible for massive killings of American Troops and Iraqis all due to the lies told by Bush to drag America into a needless war in Iraq. The Repubs aren't running against Democrats they are running against that perception.
So again you can't answer the question. I was hoping your new moniker would aid your intelligence level. If you can't back up your lies, don't say them. Even Obama has learned that.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#60 Jul 5, 2014
Delbert wrote:
<quoted text>
The day after that decision religious groups have petitioned for the religious freedom to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring practices. The flood gates that chip away constitutional freedoms and personal liberty has begun.
It doesn't matter what they petition, like Obama, they too can over extend their legal standing. Obama has done it multiple times and the fact it is directly in conflict with the law and his oath of office should worry you more than some that are arguing with no standing.

“Leonardo Di Vinci died here”

Since: Nov 08

Perpignan

#61 Jul 5, 2014
Delbert wrote:
<quoted text>
Activist rulings have consequences. There are many with this rulings. The guillotine swings both ways.
Yes, Roberts proved that by aiding Obama's law into a tax.
Cat74

Naperville, IL

#62 Jul 6, 2014
If a company had a choice between a gay applicant, or a straight applicant who do you think they would choose? How do you think they would know if someone was gay or not. Do they wear signs? They appear to be the same. So what possible difference could it make?You are looking for a fight that isn't there

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Senator Mark Udall Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP Faces Uphill Climb With Latino Voters In Ke... (Oct '15) Nov '15 Raydot 7
News For Obama, golf is an escape, even when he brin... (Aug '15) Aug '15 American_Infidel 56
News Avoiding the Trump Trap on Immigration (Jul '15) Jul '15 Jesus Latter Day ... 13
News Tom Steyer, billionaire environmentalist, calls... (Jun '15) Jun '15 Satan Pickets 1
News Can Republicans Repeat an Upset in Colorado? (May '15) May '15 Le Jimbo 1
News Self-Inflicted Wounds: Phony 'War on Women' Fal... (May '15) May '15 Responsibility 4
News Gary Hart apologizes to Cory Gardner for barbs ... (May '15) May '15 Holy Silicon Wafer 1
More from around the web