| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrats Push Bill to Reverse Supreme Court Ruling on Contraceptives |
| 2014-07-09 |
| [NY Times] Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that they had developed legislation to override the Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The bill would ensure that women have access to insurance coverage for birth control even if they work for businesses that have religious objections. The bill, put together in consultation with the B.O. regime, would require for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to provide and pay for contraceptive coverage, along with other preventive health services, under the Affordable Care Act. The measure could be on the Senate floor as early as next week, Senate Democrats said. House Democrats are developing a companion bill, but it faces long odds in the House, which is controlled by Republicans. Speaker John A. Boehner described the Hobby Lobby decision last week as "a victory for religious freedom." Senator Patty Murray ... Senator-for-life (D) from Washington state, reputedly not the sharpest intellect to be found in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body. To hear Patty tell it, if we'd built roads and bridges like Osama bin Laden had 9-11 never would have happened... , Democrat of Washington, who led efforts by Senate Democrats to respond to the ruling, said: "Your health care decisions are not your boss's business. Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women's access to health care, I will." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 "5 white men" I totally did that on purpose... um... four crackers and an Oreo! Half-baked opinion! Doomed to crumble! |
| Posted by: Pajama Boy 2014-07-09 23:34 |
| #15 "5 white men" - Democrat stupidity intersects Democrat snark? |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-07-09 22:47 |
| #14 they're flailing - "5 white men" including *ahem* noted white dude Justice Thomas. pretty pathetic. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-07-09 22:40 |
| #13 The Dems believe that SCOTUS withdrew their support prematurely? |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-07-09 22:32 |
| #12 Business needs to know everything about bedroom habits now they're being asked to fund bedroom habits. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-07-09 19:02 |
| #11 Nope, just the blue pills your mom brings with her. When you try to kiss her goodnight, tell her the bag helps me too. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-07-09 14:40 |
| #10 |
| Posted by: spano bellingbo3665 2014-07-09 14:34 |
| #9 As I have stated many times, all of this sh$$ will come to a screeching halt fifteen seconds after we the people hang the first |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2014-07-09 14:09 |
| #8 Shell game trick. Keep the masses focused on abortion, religion, etc... While we continue to fleece and destroy the country. If they spent as much energy on running this country as they do on deception we would, once again, be the greatest nation... |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-07-09 13:29 |
| #7 Fun fact: Murray voted for the rfra' and Clinton signed it into law. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-07-09 12:19 |
| #6 IANAL, but wasn't the SCOTUS ruling primarily on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was not overridden by the ACA proper, and could not by definition by set aside by executive-branch regulation allegedly authorized by ACA? It follows the *logic* of First Amendment constitutional law, but it's still limited to the RFRA proper, and the Democrats could theoretically toss it back into the courts by repealing or amending the RFRA. If, you know, they had a chance in hell of getting such a bill through the House. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2014-07-09 09:37 |
| #5 "If you don't like your law, you don't have to keep your law." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-07-09 08:55 |
| #4 ..oh, they'll do it by Administrative (bureaucratic) law, rather than Constitutional law. Who and what are going to challenge it successfully? There are no checks and balances. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-07-09 08:04 |
| #3 The Supremes ruled on the basis of the Constitution, IIRC. So who is going to draft a bill to override the Constitution - Maxine Waters? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-07-09 07:55 |
| #2 A meaningless political message or demonstration, that is intended to support the radical base and recommends continuing to elect democrats who will legislatively overturn the law. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-09 01:52 |
| #1 This is all for sow. The bill will never make it to hearings in the House. And it would end up in court anyways for First Amendment reasons. These people just don't get it, they are goons who want to force others against their will. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-07-09 01:32 |