Skip to main content

Protesters hold signs at the steps of the Supreme Court as arguments begin today to challenge the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide coverage for contraception as part of an employee's health care, in Washington March 25, 2014. The U
The New York Times games out the political fall-out from the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, calling it a decision "both sides can run with." Maybe so, but the odds are on our side. Here's some reasons why.
“The court has made clear today that the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom in this case went too far,” said Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, one of several conservative Republicans weighing a White House run. “But this assault will not stop in our courts, in our schools and in the halls of power.” […]

Though Democrats contend that voters will trust them more than they trust Republicans on women’s health issues, polls show that the question can cut both ways and that abortion remains just as decisive for Republicans. Asked whether they would still vote for a candidate who did not share their views on abortion, 60 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans said they would not, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll in February.

The problem for Republicans? Other than their really hard-core base, voters don't think this about religious freedom and they sure as hell know it isn't about abortion. Despite what five aging men on the Supreme Court say, contraception is not abortion no matter what your boss might "believe." For most of the public, this is about how much control your boss has in the very personal decisions you make about your health, your life, and your family's life. See here:
Poll results on contraception coverage question, 58 percent think employer health plans should cover full cost.
And see here:
At this point in 2010, Democrats had a narrow congressional-preference lead with women (44%-43%), and the GOP had a significant advantage with white women (51%-36%). Now? Democrats hold a double-digit with all women (50%-38%), and white women are pretty much a jump ball (GOP 45%, Dems 44%).
Gee, now why would women be abandoning the GOP? They just need to vote, and Hobby Lobby can deliver those votes. Even some more of those white women.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:39 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I hope this motivates the Dems to do more (22+ / 0-)

    and more voters to vote more and better .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:47:00 AM PDT

  •  We've been losing since Nixon; time to (17+ / 0-)

    start winning. More people are on our side; our enemy is louder & better funded.

    GOTV women & the men who love them!

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:47:12 AM PDT

    •  Progressives need to stop playing defense (6+ / 0-)

      Part of our problem is that liberals and progressives are constantly playing defense, reacting rather than acting.

      The radical right is willing to lose in the short term while playing the long game. They are not shy about bullying tactics and lies. The Republican establishment has learned that their base will not hesitate to punish the apostate at the polls.

      In comparison, Democrats almost never manage to mount effective challenges or punishments for the Beltway Dems who betray core Democratic principles.

      We will slowly kill whatever remains of progressive Democratic ideals every time a Blue Dog or New Dem gets a pass for voting with Republicans, every time we continue to contribute to an organization that is nominally Dem but endorses a so-called "moderate" like Susan Collins, every time we are too polite. We are so afraid of losing any one vote that we lose the game.

      The labor movement didn't get progressive labor laws enacted by being polite. Women didn't get the vote by being polite. The plutocrats didn't willingly cede power to enact FDR's New Deal. He made them understand that the pitchforks were coming out if things didn't change.

      After the Sixties, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers and the Symbionese Liberation Army, among others, liberals decided the radical left had to be disavowed. We needed to become safe for suburban consumption. Well, all it's done is empowered the radical right and enfeebled the left.

      Today's NYTimes has a story about hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens marching for democracy in Hong Kong. Chinese. In Hong Kong.

      And what are Americans doing to reclaim our democracy? We're reading stories of how the Pentagon is funding studies on how to contain and abort any democratic movement for change in this country. In the name of security and stability, our taxes are funding the destruction of our own democracy in order preserve the power and privileges of the plutocrats.

      Why aren't we holding Congress and the president accountable? We can't change the votes of Republican congressional thugs, but we can put the fear of hell into the hearts and minds of any Democrat that betrays us.

      Why are we nice and oh-so-reasonable with the Bible-thumping whack-jobs whose first allegiance is to their favorite magical god and not our country and planet? Why aren't we countering every anti-woman anti-abortion zealot waving the fetus signs with signs of our own? Not the usual weak sauce, but graphic pix of the mutilated, bloody corpses of women dead from back-alley abortions? Why are we so afraid of getting in their faces?

      Why aren't we organizing a series of general strikes and building the infrastructure to support rolling strikes and boycotts against the corporations that are oppressing us and killing our planet? Why aren't we aggressively pursuing the expansion of white collar unionism?

      Why aren't we funding a left-wing ALEC and presenting our reps with ready-made legislation to our liking? And making it understood that we expect passage of our agenda if they want our support in the next election?

      Why aren't we playing the long game?

      •  Can we have a discussion here? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thunder
        After the Sixties, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers and the Symbionese Liberation Army, among others, liberals decided the radical left had to be disavowed. We needed to become safe for suburban consumption. Well, all it's done is empowered the radical right and enfeebled the left.
        I think you have a point here, an important point, but one that I have a different take on.

        Yes, during that time (and let's not forget the Hippies) "liberals" vs. the "radical left"...

        I remember those times, though I was fairly young (mid-teens) in the late '60s, and though I'm fairly liberal, I have to admit that those groups you mentioned not only didn't "speak" to me, but in some senses terrified me, since the only thing they seemed to stand for was anarchy.

        So yes, this young suburbanite turned away from radical leftism. Still do if that's what radical leftism is all about.

        To me, that's where we lost our way. All through the '40s and even up to the '60s, we knew what liberalism stood for. An equalizing force that helped those in need, provided ample opportunity to all, and encouraged government to step in and solve the problems our country faced.

        But we have never gone back and reclaimed our intellectual heritage. We have bootstrapped ourselves sometime during the Clinton years as if like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus.

        To my way of thinking THAT is the single biggest reason we wind up taking it on the chin except when we have exceptional candidates -- there is no theoretical/intellectual foundation to our platform. And don't fool yourself, that is a critically important political requirement, because that's where your sloganeering is born. One's theoretical foundation is the springboard from which all else derives -- without it, you just tack with the winds, which Democrats are accused of all too often.

        It is also the reason why Democrats have such a maddeningly difficult time nationalizing mid-term elections while the Republicans have no trouble at all.

        This all brings to focus the essential reason I have great concerns about our mid-term prospects. In order for us to have a successful election, we need to answer a most fundamental question -- "WHY vote for a Democrat?"

        For too long, our answer has been "We're not an (insert adjective here) Republican." That's not going to cut it, unless and until they do something so incredibly stupid it causes people to vote -- and it can work when enough people are motivated to vote anyway (presidential years).

        We need to answer the question "WHY" and it needs to be answered for BROAD sections of the electorate, not just our piecemeal targeted demographics.

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:42:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lefties are nothing if not "intellectual" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          equern, Ditch Mitch KY, xarkGirl

          I am by no means advocating a return to the anarchic impulses of the '60s, but what was the theoretical/intellectual foundation of the old Democratic platform?

          The socialism brought here by late-19th and early 20th C European immigrants was made safe for Wall St. by the New Deal. It's gone now, but we've got enough academics in the Democratic Party as it is today. Unfortunately, all they seem to contribute at this point is the opaque language and tone deafness that are so easily ridiculed by the right.

          The left has to move away from its safe campus havens and back into the workplace and the streets. We need more Richard Trumkas and fewer Henry A. Girouxs.

          The subject of this diary is how Democrats should be able to turn the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision into an electoral advantage.

          Damn it, it should do more than that. There isn't a Democrat alive from here on out who doesn't declare at EVERY opportunity, "If you are a woman, or love a wife, sister or daughter, your vote for a Republican is a vote against women's rights, against women's health, against women's lives. A vote for any Republican is a vote for greed and theocracy over life and the American Constitution."

          Every Democrat on every gasbag show has to be on that message, every day until Republicans and their SCOTUS majority are reduced to a discredited and shunned fringe. The penalty for not vigorously supporting this core Democratic message should be severe: loss of seniority, chairmanships, campaign money, earmarks, etc. and so it should be every fcking time one of our own steps out of line on a core vote or message. I don't care what the situation is back home in their districts. No exceptions.

          This is war, and I'm sick of congressional Dems playing tiddlywinks and then mewling about how it's too hard. I'm sick of Dems making the easy lifestyle votes but never delivering when it really counts: on any vote that limits the corporations and their agenda or reins in the war machine. They never get punished for it and year after year, cycle after cycle, it's the same fat asses parked in the same seats on Capitol Hill. And the Oval Office.

          We need to engage voters emotionally, not intellectually. In this we are failing miserably. Why? Isn't it because big emotions are just so...scary and unpredictable? Just like those scary '60s guys. We don't want to get our hands dirty. We don't want to borrow from the winning playbook. Shouting is so... well, harsh!

          Democrats and our ideals have been in retreat since Nixon. It was the vast, bitter disappointment of Obama's presidency that finally pulled the scales from my eyes and showed me just how far we have fallen. The SCOTUS rulings of the past several days are a few more shovelfuls of dirt on the grave of what used to be. Now we have to fight with the fierceness and passion of a people who have been robbed by a gang of thugs.

          •  A little plagerism (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            equern

            Stealing this and adapting it to Canadian politics... you nailed it on the head perfectly... thx

            Damn it, it should do more than that. There isn't a Democrat alive from here on out who doesn't declare at EVERY opportunity, "If you are a woman, or love a wife, sister or daughter, your vote for a Republican is a vote against women's rights, against women's health, against women's lives. A vote for any Republican is a vote for greed and theocracy over life and the American Constitution."

            Damn it, it should do more than that. There shouldn’t be a Green. Liberal or New Democratic alive from here on out who doesn't declare at EVERY opportunity, "If you are a woman, or love a wife, sister or daughter, your vote for a Conservative is a vote against women's rights, against women's lives. A vote for any Conservative is a vote for greed and theocracy over democratic government and the Canadian Constitution / Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

          •  You miss my point, though (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xarkGirl

            I am definitely NOT talking about academic or "intellectual" formulations about our party positions in any way, sense, or form.

            You wrote:

            Democrats and our ideals have been in retreat since Nixon. It was the vast, bitter disappointment of Obama's presidency that finally pulled the scales from my eyes and showed me just how far we have fallen. The SCOTUS rulings of the past several days are a few more shovelfuls of dirt on the grave of what used to be. Now we have to fight with the fierceness and passion of a people who have been robbed by a gang of thugs.
            What ideals?

            And THAT is my point. WHAT is it that the Democratic party stands for these days?

            Perhaps a good deal of our angst in this regard is less because of party incompetency and lack of willingness, but because of a fundamental disconnect between what we think the ideals of our party are.

            I repeat my question, "WHY vote for a Democrat" you've given me reasons I should be afraid of Republicans, this is NOT the same as why you should vote FOR a Democrat.

            I posit that that is the essential problematic question for our party. We are SO EFFING BUSY defining ourselves by what the Republicans do or don't do, how can we POSSIBLY be surprised when our party cants to what it is we ask them to fight against?

            What you've given me is a defensive argument. That's not what we need; what we need is an argument on which we can go on OFFENSE.

            If we had a thoroughly Democratic congress and progressive President -- not just what would we do, but WHY would we do it; not in high fallutin' language, but in gutsy street talk.

            What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

            by equern on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:48:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, I don't think we should vote for (0+ / 0-)

              Democrats in any reflexive way.

              Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought: The current crop of Democrats, with a small handful of exceptions, do not deserve our votes. They don't deserve to be reelected and I resent being told to hold my nose and fall in line because "the Republicans would be so much worse."

              This particular cudgel is wildly effective with progressives every time the SCOTUS belches up a Hobby Lobby-type outrage.

              The problem is we are rightly afraid of the very real consequences for the most powerless among us if the Republicans manage to win even more power.

              At some point, though, we will have to say "Enough." We will have to risk losing by throwing the worst of the Blue Dogs and New Dems out of the tent.

              So for me, the question isn't "why vote for a Democrat." It's why aren't we making sure that any Democrat who represents us actually does just that?

              I have despaired of Democratic/progressive messaging for years. I hate the fussiness, the lists, the idiot acronyms. I hate the inability to use plain language and the tendency to over-explain what is essentially very simple. Our reliance on identity politics has built a rickety coalition, but always risks alienating one faction or another. What are the winning issues that alienate the 1% and resonate with the 99%? Why has it been so easy for the plutocrats to pull the wool over so many eyes?

              We know what we stand for. I could be facetious and say it's Truth, Justice and the American Way, but that really isn't too far from the traditional Democratic platform.

              Alan Grayson is one of the few politicians who gets it. He routinely writes one-sentence bills that anyone can understand. He isn't afraid to attack the Republicans savagely, and for his efforts most of the "polite" Dems look at him nervously and apologize for the verbal bomb-thrower.

              Do the gasbag shows invite Grayson? Or Sanders? Or Warren? No. It's the same old tired lineup: Schumer, Hoyer, the worst of the Beltway New Dems and Blue Dogs.

              The Dem caucus has no discipline or cohesion with which to launch any focused messaging. Whose fault is that? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and every other hack on Capitol Hill. And we put them there and we keep them there every cycle.

              We're going to have to risk the losses to make them afraid of us. We are going to have to do our own messaging. We are going to have to get the lawyers among us to write the bills and demand that our representatives introduce them and vote for them. Bills that deliver Truth. Bills that deliver Justice. Bills that restore the American Way.

              We must do the hard work of building up the liberal-progressive politics of this country once again. In this, we can learn from the Republican playbook. They have driven the narrative and direction of this country almost exclusively since 1980. The pendulum won't swing back unless we are willing to take the risks.

          •  The enemy among us (0+ / 0-)

            The Obama presidency has been one long bitter betrayal of the Progressive base that put him in the White House. After 8 years of the rogue Bush/Cheney regime this country desperately needed a good leader to step forward and undo the damage. The absolute worst thing that could have happened was a second consecutive rogue administration. Obama knew this and still betrayed decency at every opportunity. One more surveillance state fascist in the White House and our freedom is dead and gone. Three strikes and you are O U T!

          •  Elected Democrats need courage, so do voters. (0+ / 0-)

            If we don't stop electing Democrats and elect Progressives, true Progressives, then we might as well just sit this election out as we did the one that allowed the Tea Party..(aka Koch 1% Party) to take over and finish the 1% agenda. Too many elected have no true courage, and this also applies to my own Progressives. Hell yes we need to return to the streets. When we stopped protesting and became "polite"...we began to lose everything. We didn't even finish what our mothers and grandmothers started.
            Women still fight for rights we should have won half a century ago. Men should be right besides us, as contraception effects them too. Perhaps the right has crazies who can't spell, but it seems to me we have weak men, too often more worried about getting arrested or breaking a nail to take it to the streets and stand beside women and children being screwed, right before their eyes..

        •  Why NOT? Indeed! (0+ / 0-)

          The left didn't appoint these Supreme court Justices who caused this anti women discrimination vote allowing any employer to get into your medical choices and decide "for you". Nor did Democrats vote for Citizen's United, the GOP did! Nor did Democrats vote for Bush or lie us into two wars, commit war crimes, torture in our name and wrap themselves in a false confederate flag of a god of their own making. Democrats aren't forcing you to follow their religion and impose it into our laws. Democrats aren't promoting a few billionaires who want to take down our government and commit open treason while the morons cheer from the side lines on Bus's hired for them by the Koch brother's.

          For that matter, when was the last GOP President who didn't break a law? Nixon, Reagan, Bush...

          To vote republican is to vote for insecure fanatic gun carrying nuts, who can't buy cookies without an assault weapon, and who feel their fight to commit murder trumps our right to live safely. Democrats aren't pushing forcing our kids to live in fear as an alternative to standing up to our rights instead of shut down the NRA.

           Is that not enough for you to see the difference? When has a democrat insulted your intelligence on topics about abortion or any health matters? Speaking of health..Which Party claimed, The ACA would "Kill women, Kill men and Kill children"?? Seriously? You see no difference? Which sides fights for progress while the other fights only for more tax breaks for a wealthy few? Who deregulated media to where it's a joke to watch, that shames more than it informs?

           This same beloved GOP have caused the debt and taken it out on the middle class because they're open racist, and Obama didn't wipe out a decade of GOP spending in his first year. Democrats failed to show up after Obama won and they didn't help the man. No leading Democrats stand for him now. Remember midterms, (both) post Presidential election when Obama assumed 'We were mad at him for 'Not making nice with the do nothing racists congress"? WE failed to show up for him, he took it as a personal loss, losing a Democrat congress with the first woman...one who got things done!! That congress lost due to apathy. We only lost because Democrats failed to show up, not because the GOP were right.

          We won the Presidential election again, but went home and did nothing since.  We seem to be electing cowards and when we don't elect cowards, the GOP buy elections and knock them out. We also sat while this GOP pushed laws against civil rights, voting rights , women's rights and freedom, all went right through the GOP nominated Supreme court. Which side killed Vets and then denied them benefits?
          While it's true, the way things are set up,,(BY GOP) there are some Democrat cowards that refuse to stand for people and our principles, yes they have to go, Democrat or not! But even among them, there is a difference, beyond the voters apathy.(Voter apathy being the Party's only flaw)

          The GOP, like Fox are "Out of the closet" hateful anti women and racists. The only thing this GOP congress has voted on more, besides hurting women and children, is voting to gut every Social program we already ever paid for and removing every safe guard ever voted on to keep us all safe from criminal corporate polluters.. This GOP insults anyone with an IQ above a third grader with their comments, and make this country appear to be one of racists, backwards religious fanatics stuck in a darker time.

          Perhaps your parents linked the Left with "Hippies"..That wasn't the case. It was the timid media portrait of the left, just as they did to those who went against Banks and the 1%. The message got lost in the rush of what they tried to fix.
          Left if for progressive values, equality with no exceptions. Like in the name "Progress".

           There is nothing conservative about this con job of the GOP today. These people aren't the party I grew up voting for, and I did once.

          This GOP literally applauds killing people and mostly those already alive humans, all to have larger numbers to add representatives in congress..They steal rights and elections. My question would be, why would anyone sane vote for anyone Republican given what they now obviously stand for? Let's not leave out who they openly stand with??

      •  I'm with you and have for a long time believed ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yonit

        I'm with you and have for a long time believed we haven't fought hard enough a against the oppression of the right wing and as long as let them they will continue to erode the personal freedoms granted by our forefathers

      •  I'm no leader (0+ / 0-)

        But I'm a damned good follower and willing, eager to FIGHT for decency and against the right. Show me where to sign up and I'll get busy sharpening my sword.

  •  Local radio wingnut spent all morning telling his (14+ / 0-)

    listeners that no one 'understood' the decision.

  •  from congress to the courts (17+ / 0-)

    the gop is warring on women, people of color, workers, and anyone who isn't a member of or dependent on the white, male, monied, theocratic elite. the question is: what do its targets intend to do about it?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:48:20 AM PDT

    •  and then the second question is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Termite

      does supporting the democratic status quo do something about it?

      "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

      by Publius2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:34:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you have to ask (0+ / 0-)

        you're not paying attention. or worse.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:49:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, no. (0+ / 0-)

          The RFRA was a bill supported by democrats and signed by Bill Clinton.  Dems keep opening the door and, somewhat naturally, the neo-liberals keep walking in. This is what capitulating to rhetorical memes like "religious freedom" or "free markets" will get you.

          It is wise to know what you fight before you fight.  And most imperative that you not fight yourself.

          "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

          by Publius2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:56:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes more than no ... (0+ / 0-)

            Again: Anyone who at least knows who not to vote for, can't sit around indulging snooty perfectionism about dirty party politics and corporatism and all that .... Sure, work the primaries, work for better Democrats, support Warren until the nomination is done ... But when the real election rolls around, it's either some corporatism plus social and personal rights, or harder buck-wild corporatism plus no social and personal rights. That's the real choice, not unicorns versus the devil.

          •  We are well aware of Democrats' limitations .. (0+ / 0-)

            The answer is to work harder in the Primaries etc, but when the real election rolls around, it's either cut your arm or lose your life ...

          •  you do understand (0+ / 0-)

            that this judicial overreach had nothing to do with the actual letter and intent of the rfra, right? you also don't seem even to understand what neoliberal means, because it has nothing to do with this ruling.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 04:24:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  GOTV, nationwide. And for everything from the (3+ / 0-)

      top government representatives to someone as innocuous as the dogcatcher.

      "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

      by ditsylilg on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just women (0+ / 0-)

      After all, STDs are a sign of promiscuous sex, so treatment should be withheld.  Cancer, a clear call from the almighty to go home, so no treatment for you.  Heart attacks? The result of a generally decadent life, and why should we pay for your avoidance of external damnation?

      Of course these effect men, so let's keep them.

      She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

      by lowt on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:13:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget taking up serpents.... (0+ / 0-)

        those snake handlers might keep them in the stock room for employees to find.  If they are righteous they will be safe.  It is, after all, their religious belief.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by cowdab on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:00:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We can mobilize voters on this. (20+ / 0-)

    I think it's also important to focus on the fact that this decision just made the rights of corporation-people more important than the rights of human-people.

    Hopefully that realization would get people to the voting booth in November.

    I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

    •  This... (13+ / 0-)

      the rights of corporation-people more important than the rights of human-people ... is THE argument if you ask me!

      I think that's the argument that will get the best mileage.

      The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

      by cany on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:04:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate people will always trump Human people, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, nellgwen, cowdab

      on John Robert's court.  

    •  Which right would that be? (0+ / 0-)

      HL was not against contraception, they are against the Morning After Pill. The abortion pill.
      So which RIGHT is violated. Life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? Of those three, l would argue that you had the liberty of sex and that made you happy and now you want to abort the life that you have created. Again, which RIGHT is being violated?
      Maybe you could argue that your poor decision making skills in having unprotected sex and getting pregnant and now you do not have the liberty to pursue your happiness? Now someone else should pay for your self indulgence and your lifestyle choices?
      Where does that stop?

      •  technically (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell

        HL is paying for helath insurance, as part of the benefits package to employees for their work, most employers now make their employees pay part of the premiums, so the benefit is not free.

        IN HL case the court said any employer could have any religous objection to any of the BC measures not just the morning after pill.

      •  Yes, HL is AGAINST contraception (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell

        One of the things they don't want their employees to have are IUDs.

        This is a medical matter between the patient and their doctor, it's NONE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.

        Did you know that Hobby Lobby's pension funds invest in pharmaceutical companies that make the Morning After pills? And that their employees health insurance covers Viagra for men?

        •  Not their business? (0+ / 0-)

          Daddy pay for my car, daddy pay for my gas, daddy pay for my insurance...
          Do not dare ask me where l am going!!
          I am grown!!
          That's none of your business!!

          When someone else is paying for your stuff, it is their business.

          •  HL is [probably] NOT paying 100% of the (0+ / 0-)

            insurance premiums, therefore, I get to decide what I want my premiums to cover.

            Please, by all means, list those companies out there that will pay 100% of their EEs health insurance premiums.  I am sure they are out there, but they are few and far between.

            •  Alright (0+ / 0-)

              Any time any one has to pay for ANY amount then they will have a say so in how that money is used.
              It is THEIR money. It's not the percentage amount that is at question, it is having someone else pay for your stuff and then be indignant when they want to control that money.

          •  Just because you sell out for cash doesn't (0+ / 0-)

            make the rest of us whores. You're a freaky troll anyway.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by cowdab on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:04:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Medical insurance is an employee benefit. (0+ / 0-)

            Benefits are indirect and non-cash "compensation" paid to an employee.

            Payroll is cash "compensation" paid to an employee.

            So I guess you also believe an employer should have a say in how you spend your paycheck?

            •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

              Back in republican good old days, employers for the Hobby Lobbies of the era used to show up at their employees homes to inspect how the employee was spending the pay that the generous corporation was "giving" them. I believe Ford used to do this. They expected you to spend "their" money in ways that they approved of. Same as Hobby Lobby and our medical privacy.

          •  Fall far from the tree (0+ / 0-)

            Damn, sounds like you raised some rotten kids. Daddy buy me everything and then piss off? Not sure what your problem is though? Isn't being an ungrateful, me first loudmouth what you on the right aspire to? What Tea Party tenets have your Daddy,Daddy,Daddy  litter violated? They sound right on track to carry on where Daddy leaves off.

      •  You sound like a republican. HL was very against (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        Birth control including IUD.  And the morning after pill does not cause abortion.

        I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

        by the dogs sockpuppet on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:40:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (2+ / 0-)

        That's in the Declaration of Independence.  HL was arguing "sincerely held religious beliefs," even if those "beliefs" were contradicted by scientific facts.  Notwithstanding the fact that the HL decision applies to all contraception, using the Declaration of Independence to claim that a corporation's "right" to sincerely held "religious beliefs" outweighs an individual's health care needs is just pure horseshit.

        "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

        by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Healthcare Need? (0+ / 0-)

          If the pill is not used for anything other than medical necessity then it is not for need. It is for screwing and not getting pregnant which is not a need.
          Easiest way to not get pregnant is to not have sex.
          IT'S FREE!!
          Since you bring up the Constitution, then please show me there where it is a right for a company to pay for anyone's healthcare?

          •  So you would have women at risk of getting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr MadAsHell

            Pregnant with every sexual encounter with her partner? How cruel and misogynistic are you?  And are you willing to support all those unwanted children with government resources?  These women don't have the economic resources raise all the children you'd want them to have.

            Abstinence is an unrealistic expectation in healthy adults.

            What benefit do you gain from trolling here?

            I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

            by the dogs sockpuppet on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't bring up the Constitution, you did. (0+ / 0-)

            Promoting the "general welfare" is a legitimate government purpose, and the ACA requires birth control to be provided as part of a base policy.  That's how insurance works.  Using an employer's "religious beliefs" did evade an insurance requirement is, once again, horseshit.

            "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

            by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:01:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So tell me (0+ / 0-)

              At what point does the State get checked on how much it invades into a private company?
               What if it doesn't  like the personnel that it hires?
              What if it doesn't like the location it's in?
              What if it doesn't like the guy that built the company in the first place?

            •  Flip the script (0+ / 0-)

              What if the "general welfare" required that the population be told to wear pedometers that were to be downloaded every week to maintain general fitness?

              •  No clue what your argument is. (0+ / 0-)

                Not going to waste my time.

                Take Civics 101 and figure out how all levels of government, every day, figure out what they can, and cannot do, or what they want to do, as long as they stay within the parameters of the Constitution.  The role of government ebbs and flows with the times, and on an issue by issue basis.  Myself, I happen to believe that access to health care is a human right, not a commodity to be bought in a so-called "free market place."

                I'll let medical professionals, and their patients, figure out what they need.  To infer that, beyond a particular medical condition, birth control for women is only for "slutty behavior" is nonsense.  The Christian Taliban notion of abstinance is horseshit - would turn centuries of human behavior upside down based on the whim of extremists.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies should not mean celibacy.  Get over yourself.

                "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

                by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:18:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I like you (0+ / 0-)

                  You stay on argument point, you snipe at the end but that's cool.

                  I did not mean to infer that there is a "slut" component to getting the pill.
                  I just don't believe that companies should pay for your recreational behavior (married,single,whatever) male or female (Viagra or the pill) unless it is not used for recreation and it is medically necessary.
                  That is the point that l think is being overlooked.

                  I think it is extremely hypocritical to include Viagra and not the pill, they should both be thrown out unless they are deemed necessary to living, by their MD not the company.

                  Side:The government has been working outside of the Constitution for decades now.

                  •  You're splitting hairs.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Yonit

                    "recreation vs need"

                    So insurance shouldn't cover injuries sustained in a boating accident?
                    So insurance shouldn't cover injuries sustained on a school playground?

                    Insurance can't possibly work that way.

                    But it can go back (and appears to be) to "insurance" rather than health care coverage. My high deductible policy requires me to pay for all the little stuff...before something life-altering happens. This makes me take responsibility for my overall health - and yes - that IS MY responsibility.

          •  Ask an expert (0+ / 0-)

            I have no trouble believing that for a guy like you the ramifications of having sex aren't a worry.

      •  goose v gander (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't notice Hobby Lobby restricting the plan when Viagra is prescribed. They'll happily foot the bill to allow their over the hill male employees to engage in sex, presumably with woman since I'm sure they condemn gays as well. These men being good Christians will of course happily raise and support any babies produced in the absence of birth control.

  •  My social feeds are full of liberals... (12+ / 0-)

    ...and I'll be brutally honest: I don't see any fight in these people. I see beat down exasperation and stunned bewilderment. Part of that owes to the fact that a Supreme Court justice cannot be voted off the island, I'm sure. But the revolving door of rage that is Facebook/Twitter does not seem to be able to facilitate any kind of sustained action. That's why I'm here today, and not there.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

    •  Unless Democrats (8+ / 0-)

      come to grips with the reality that the Right will NEVER STOP and knows no bounds to outrageous behavior we will continue to lose.  To put in bluntly, we need to beat them to a pulp.

      •  Sounds a bit violent don't you think? (0+ / 0-)

        "Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we’re not talking about bank robbers here, we’re talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point?"--Susie Madrak managing editor of Crooks and Liarsblog

        You mean beat them like that?

    •  I honestly think that is the very nature of Fac... (5+ / 0-)

      I honestly think that is the very nature of Facebook. It is a passive form of engagement.

      •  Which keeps people informed, at least. (5+ / 0-)

        My dad used to say, it's 10 percent of the population dragging the other 90 percent forward. That's the reality in the numbers so, what we do has to be effective.

        Another thing I've been thinking about is that the lovely, young, right wing ladies at the court yesterday have their church as the center of their social network. They have a group created, in a NY minute, every Sunday.

        Many of us are unaffiliated so we don't have the ready made group.

        It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

        by Desert Rose on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:39:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I very much doubt the revolution will be conducted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Termite, ditsylilg, Thunder

      on "social media".

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  local issues (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Womantrust, ditsylilg, nellgwen

      So if they are not driven to action on this issue, get them fired up about some local issue or candidate. If they turn up at the polls for a local issue, the whole ticket will benefit. The whole country will benefit.

      Hell, in Massachusetts we pretty much know who is going to win every election but we turn up anyway because we always have our favorite issues or Democrat that we want to support. (80% Democratic legislature)

      We dropped the ball with Scott Brown and it will be a looooong time before we forget that and get complacent again.

      By the way, casino gambling is the big issue this year. It's pretty much all that anyone is talking about.

      •  We didn't drop the ball with Scottie. Martha ran (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aseth

        a spectacularly tone-deaf campaign.  And we knew it wasn't a six year mistake.  I had to hold my nose to vote for her and I felt horrible after.

        "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

        by ditsylilg on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:42:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And it turned out for the best, since we have W... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cjfb, ditsylilg

          And it turned out for the best, since we have Warren as Senator-for-Life instead of Coakley. Now we just need to get Berwick in the governor's chair.

          •  I like Grossman, but will look into Berwick. (0+ / 0-)

            "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

            by ditsylilg on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 02:30:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll vote for Grossman... (0+ / 0-)

              If he's our candidate. He doesn't excite me as much as some of the things Berwick is proposing, but is quite acceptable. I'm not a fan of Coakley though at all.

              Re-Elect Al Gore! Gore/Warren 2016! Eight More Years!

              by aseth on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:33:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So with you on Coakley. During the height of the (0+ / 0-)

                foreclosure crisis I had the pleasure (?) of meeting Coakley at an SEUI event where she was honored.  I asked her, since she was kind enough to acknowledge me, why we were letting the banks get  away.  I saw a bit of a flash in her eyes.  I just wish that I had asked her why she supported the banks given that they had collapsed pensions countrywide.  Since she is a civil servant, she was personally impacted.  I think if I had asked her in terms of her own personal circumstance I would have extracted an answer and not just the (IMO) condescending smile I received.

                "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

                by ditsylilg on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:10:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  We are Losing (7+ / 0-)

    for many reasons, the principal reason is Democrats are not coming out to vote.  Until one of these geniuses in the Democratic Party who we give LOTS of money to figure out how to get Democrats to vote, we will continue to lose.

    •  Maybe the should start standing up for working (6+ / 0-)

      people more; when they are praising the gutting of worker rights, for example, in the teacher ranks, it kinda makes it hard to feel good about voting for them. Same in NJ; the Sweeney Norcross Dems helped Christie get his plans through, now they wanna talk tough about pensions? C'mon now, at least we know the repubs are gonna screw us, with dems you never really know. You assume they will do the right things, but often they do the opposite of what working people would benefit from. I vote for Dems due to the Supreme Court. And they know it, and take my vote for granted.

    •  one reason they don't come out to vote is they (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delver

      become disappointed in the lack of progress

       which is directly proportional to continuing 25 years of ignoring right wing radio and evaluating political progress and dem reps as if it didn't exist, while the rw think tanks create their own reality and made-to-order constituencies, manage and enable the MSM, and take free potshots at our reps all day, every day.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:57:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It will be interesting to see if Hobby Lobby (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, zitherhamster

    has any impact on voter enthusiasm in November, on either side. I would be surprised if it does. This midterm election isn't going to influence who serves on the SCOTUS and I challenge anyone to put an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to remedy the Hobby Lobby decision, into a soundbite. Good luck.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:00:18 AM PDT

    •  EVERY election influences the SCOTUS (13+ / 0-)

      we need every senate seat we can get to ensure Democratic picks will be approved. Over the long term, more Dems everywhere means better people in high places.

      •  and those senators need to be good not blue dog (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        delver

        senators.

        but even then the pressures around picking supremes that could get through is heavily influenced by a rw media deciding who is acceptable and who isn't

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:38:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what if? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samer, ditsylilg, delver

      No, it's not going to change the minds of those serving on SCOTUS but what if a couple of them have a heart attack or just get tired of it all and resign?

      We need to be ready for that by ensuring the Dems have adequate control of the senate.

      •  We all expect that Justice Ginsburg will retire (0+ / 0-)

        in the next two years, but President Obama hasn't had any problems having his picks approved by the Senate and I don't think he would even if the Republicans had control (although GOP control seems unlikely).

        None of the conservative majority will ever retire if a Democrat is President. They will die in the saddle waiting for a GOP administration.

        But I agree keeping the largest majority possible in the Senate is important. My point was that I don't think the Hobby Lobby decision will have a significant effect on turnout for either side.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:48:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Note that as of now (0+ / 0-)

          A Supreme Court nomination can still be filibustered.

          •  Historically that hasn't happened (0+ / 0-)

            Nominees have been given an up or down vote. Some didn't have the votes.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:58:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, but it was (0+ / 0-)

              A specific exemption when the filibuster for nominees was removed. Don't think that the GOP won't take advantage of that if there's anything they don't like about the nominee.

              •  The President has nominated main stream (0+ / 0-)

                candidates and if he did that again I don't think the GOP would filibuster. However, if he nominated someone like Goodwin Liu they would filibuster. And Liu is definitely on the President's short list. The Republican Senators will never allow Liu to be named to the federal bench if they have any means of blocking him. Liu, a brilliant legal liberal, made a tragic mistake of personally objecting to the nomination of Samuel Alito at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Alito's nomination. Liu wasn't representing any group, just himself. In the view of the GOP that was behavior that was unforgivable and they have vowed to never allow him to serve. The President tried to place Liu on a federal appeals court, but was unsuccessful. Liu currently serves on the California Supreme Court.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:14:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  They fucked with the wrong people here (20+ / 0-)

    single women are not the American demographic you want to gleefully enrage and then spike the football in their faces and hold your middle finger an inch in front of their faces screaming mindless macho garbage before any election cycle. Off-year or not.

    And to top it all off, they give you something that burns in your brain and is hard to forget. Like. For example.

    That Erick Erickson Twitter quote:

    It was a tough choice today. Celebrate Hobby Lobby by going to Chick-Fil-A or making my wife make me a sandwich. #CFAFTW — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2014
    That's what incredibly fucking stupid people do when they do not know or understand who they are messing with.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Optics, much? (5+ / 0-)

    SCOTUS vote:

    Men: 5-1 in favor of Hobby Lobby
    Women: 3-0 against HL

    I hope and pray that women are mega-motivated to vote in 2014 and 2016.

    And (h/t above to LeftHandedMan) keep passing around EE's tweet:

    It was a tough choice today. Celebrate Hobby Lobby by going to Chick-Fil-A or making my wife make me a sandwich. #CFAFTW — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2014
  •  It's cynical to say dems can "run on" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver

    Hobby.  Better to learn from Hobby, come to a realization of what the neo-liberals are doing and no longer participate in their world vision: the dominance of corporations in politics and policy.

    "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

    by Publius2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:32:58 AM PDT

  •  Democrats can also run on pointing out that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, OldDragon, delver, nellgwen

    republicans are piecing the corporate veil and establishing the principle that corporations are people (i.e. their owners).  This should scare the shit out of any semi-sane otherwise-republican businessman.  It is a theme I keep repeating in my comments.  If the republicans don't yield and business leaders continue to back them I see no point in not playing this theme out to its logical conclusion.

    "Wrong, Do it again!" "If you don't learn to compete, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't learn to compete?" "You! Yes, you occupying the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

    by ban48 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

    •  Not only that they are "people" but they are (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sixty Something, nellgwen

      people with more rights than actual people.  If corporations were really people and could get pregnant, I'm sure birth control would be a sacrament.

      I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

      by the dogs sockpuppet on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:49:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More Hypocrisy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust, DRo, OldDragon, nellgwen

    Yesterday I commented on their Hypocrisy, while denying their employees contraception because of their "deeply held religious beliefs", but their "deeply held religious beliefs" did not stop them from investing in companies that manufactured contraception, now we learn they will continue to cover Viagra and Vasectomies for men, while still denying their female employees contraception.

    The SCOTUS gave corporation the right to impose Christian Sharia law on women.

  •  I am not sure why heterosexual men (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, nellgwen, msdrown

    are not screaming and tearing their hair out about this decision.  It directly impacts them.  

    Cardinal Dolan (and Republican lawmakers) have repeatedly said that they will not fund contraceptive care for women, Dolan recently said that "contraceptives" are readily available everywhere, including at the 7/11, so denying women prescriptive contraceptives would have zero impact on the easily availability of contraceptives, so, who cares?

    So, gentlemen of the straight persuasion, if you don't wish that question you ask in the heat of the moment:

    "Whose your Daddy, baby?"

       to be followed with a chorus of small voices shouting:

    "You are! Daddy!"

    and have your wages garnished for the rest of your natural life, SCOTUS has just handed you a condom for you to wear and enjoy, and hope it never breaks.

    (Gee, am I happy I am gay, some days!)

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

    •  I'm a heterosexual male (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nellgwen

      and I'm not screaming and tearing my hair out about this decision because screaming and tearing out my hair will not fix anything . I oppose what the supreme court and hobby lobby has done . Cool heads are working on a way to fix up the problem .

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:56:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  good reason to support the limbaugh boycotts (0+ / 0-)

    and for keeping him in the news

    he more than anyone represents the morals and principles of the republican party- he is the closest thing they have to a leader and there are a lot of women out there who might not be democrats but are getting sick and tired of that limbaugh bullshit they hear from their 'menfolk'

    i wouldn't be surprised if raising his exposure helped with the record gender gap of the 2012 elections.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:48:48 AM PDT

  •  Hobby Lobby was NOT about Contraception (0+ / 0-)

    True contraceptives - condoms, sponges, diaphragms - devices that serve only to prevent fertilization, are unaffected by this ruling. Rather this ruling targets medicines - products that have a physiological effect on the body, an effect that can be used to treat/deal with many different conditions. The owners of Hobby Lobby have decided that some of the side effects of these medications have an outcome they don't like. Admittedly many people use the products simply for their side effects (but then again, Viagra is a failed cardiovascular drug with a very interesting side effect), but that is irrelevant to those who will benefit in other ways from the same medications. Also, chemotherapy can both prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and abortion of a pregnancy that's already began. Is the Court really saying that Hobby Lobby can prevent their child-bearing aged female employees from getting cancer treatment?

    The Democrats need to run on this, and run on it hard, but make clear the implications. This is about the denial of medications based on misguided apprehensions of their effects by non-scientists.

    "There is no crack in our pies." - Michelle Obama 6/30/2014

    by CPT Doom on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:49:01 AM PDT

  •  Sure, but they have to VOTE (0+ / 0-)

    They and anyone else who at least knows who not to vote for, can't sit around indulging snooty perfectionism about dirty party politics and corporatism and all that .... Sure, work the primaries, work for better Democrats, support Warren until the nomination is done ... But when the real election rolls around, it's either some corporatism plus social and personal rights, or harder buck-wild corporatism plus no social and personal rights. That's the real choice, not unicorns versus the devil.

  •  "We" might not "win", (0+ / 0-)

    but I know one thing for sure. No one will choose to shop at Hobby Lobby who would not have before. The obverse is some may go to alternatives because of the ruling. No upside exists, downside likely.

    "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

    by Joe Jackson on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:53:03 AM PDT

  •  Is anyone really surprised the most corrupt &am... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen

    Is anyone really surprised the

    most corrupt & lowest rated SC

    ruled with their wallets

    instead of using the law?

  •  An American Theocracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen

    Isn't it amazing of how the Christians loathe the Muslims who have such strict laws on their following, but actually they want the same thing here.  I am just crazy with all this crap.  The Supreme Court is ruining our abilities to be free of thought in this country.  Unreal.

  •  Does the Bible even mention contraception? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen

    I'm no biblical scholar, but if the Bible ever mentioned contraception or abortion, I'm sure the fundies would be quoting it all the time.

    If Reagan was the answer, it must have been a very silly question.

    by shoeless on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:25:20 AM PDT

  •  The real roots of the religious right's political (0+ / 0-)

    activism is not about opposing abortion because of Roe v. Wade and the belief that life begins at conception, but according to this Politico Magazine article, rather it was about protecting the tax-exempt status of segregated, fundamentalist Christian schools: http://www.politico.com/...

  •  women (0+ / 0-)

    I was just wondering if there is a way for the GOP to gerrymander just women and not districts? They will probably find a way.

    My greatest fear is letting myself run loose in my own mind. It gets kinda scary in there.

    by ndgoldendomer on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:35:48 AM PDT

  •  Women, especially white women (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ballerina, a2nite

    need to wake up to the fact that the republican party is not their friend, not even a little bit.  The things that matter to women are not the things that matter to republicans, it is that simple.

  •  There is a Solution... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    ...take Heath Insurance out of the hands of Employers.

    The Public Option

    'nuff said

  •  Is this issue really about contraception per se, (0+ / 0-)

    or is it about the ACA and government intrusion?  Frankly, many women I know are not supportive of the contraception mandate...and they are not all right wing Conservatives.  They are simply thinking women who use contraceptives themselves.

    On one hand there is the mantra to keep the government out of the bedroom, on the other there is the open invitation inside as long as there's a freebie.
    Except there never is a freebie...never...ever.
    The real issue here is the idea that the government should mandate anything with regard to healthcare that is not about a real, immediate health issue.  Last time I checked conception was not a disease or even an illness.  Nor was contraception the only way to prevent childbearing (I always enjoy going to the farmer's market with my GFs, who are pretty much all on the pill in one form or another, and listening to them go on about how careful they are with what they put into their bodies...uh...OK).  Personally I think if anything should be mandated it should be health club memberships.  They are gender neutral, preventative and would boost employment and the social good.

    Before voting for the party that put the law in place, and forced this challenge and ruling, women and everyone else should ponder what they are voting for.  Had the current administration not overreached there would be no ruling from the Supreme Court.  Not only did they overreach to begin with, they were given ample opportunity to amend the mandate.  They chose not to.  Why?

    Did they misjudged the odds and the stakes, thinking they would win in the SCOTUS?  If they were not certain of a win...and no one was near sure of this one...it was foolhardy to push this agenda now.  The anger Liberals feel at this ruling should really be directed at the Administration and the party that blindly supported the ACA against the wishes of a vast majority of Americans.
    Healthcare for all is an admirable goal, but no problem has ever been effectively solved without determining it's root cause.  The Healthcare Bill never addressed the root cause(s), if it had there would have been much more support for it.  Instead it focused on change for the sake of a many tentacled agenda.  Liberals can take comfort in the fact that over time company provided healthcare will die off and then it will then be perfectly accepted that the government mandate coverages...and do not worry about the Republicans defeating 'Obamacare'.  It works too well for their corporate donors who see the door open to save millions.  They don't want that door shut.  Therefore neither of corporate America's parties will do anything too much to shut that door.

    "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit..." - Margaret Sanger

    by RyG on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:49:06 AM PDT

  •  Best thing I can think of: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jnhobbs

    The insurance companies should charge Hobby Lobby more for their premiums. (And anyone else who won't cover birth control.) On the grounds that pregnancy is more expensive than birth control. A lot of them might reconsider how "sincerely" held their beliefs are.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:15:51 PM PDT

  •  The Hobby Lobby decision (0+ / 0-)

    is not really part of a War on Women as much as it is a part of the War on Labor.  It says that your employer has the right to control what you do even when you're not at work.  It's much more pro-Corporation than pro-Religion or anti-Woman.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site