The Supreme Court and the Phony War on Women

Birth Control(Editor’s Note:  This column was posted just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case.  But because of a technical glitch we were unable to send out our regular newsletter alert informing you the column was on the site.  If it feels a tad behind the curve, that’s why.  Apologies.)

*****

Another shot in what liberals like to call the War on Women has just been fired. It came in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that family-owned companies don’t have to pay for contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act if it violates the family’s religious beliefs.

As liberals see it, this is a clear-cut case of Republican misogyny toward women. And they don’t plan to let a decision they don’t like go to waste.

The case was brought by Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets. Both companies are owned by Christian families that faced fines in the millions if they refused coverage.

The Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare requires employers to provide female workers with the kind of coverage that pays for a variety of birth control methods.  The companies objected to some of the methods saying they amount to abortion, since they may prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. If they provided coverage for those types of contraception, the companies said, they would be complicit in something that violates their religious values.

The ruling was 5-4. All five Justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents while the four voting in the minority were appointed by Democrats.

So the battle lines are drawn: for conservatives the decision came down to upholding a federal law that protected Americans against undue intrusion by the government in matters of religion. For liberals, it was about what they see as women’s rights.

Democrats are already using the Court’s decision to rev up the party’s base in advance of the mid-term elections four months away. They knew they were going to have a voter turnout problem in November, given President Obama’s fading popularity. Now they’re hoping the Supreme Court, while handing down a ruling they don’t like, also handed them a gift.

Even though the court’s ruling applies to very few women, that didn’t stop Nancy Pelosi from calling the decision “an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women.”  Senator Patty Murray said it is “a dangerous precent and takes us closer to a time in history when women had no choice and no voice.”  Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who heads up the Democratic National Committee said, “It is no surprise that Republicans have sided against women on this issue as they have consistently opposed a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.”  And Hillary Clinton said, “It’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

This from a woman who wants to be president!  It’s an unserious remark that earned her two Pinocchios from the Washington Post. But it’s not only Ms. Clinton.  It’s all nonsense, of course, understandable only because Democrats are desperate. It matters, they’re saying, who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It matters what party runs the Senate and gets to vote on those appointments. Too much is at stake for women, so don’t sit home in November, is the message.  In other words, the liberal battle plan is:  Scare women to the polls.

The problem for Democrats is that while single women make up one of the fastest growing voter demographics in the United States, comprising about 25 percent of the electorate, young women are less likely to vote in midterm elections – just like everyone else.

As a piece in the National Journal pointed out: “A Supreme Court case doesn’t necessarily change that: Getting young female voters fired up about a decision is one thing; getting them to vote is another.”

Despite the noise surrounding the High Court’s decision, women, of course, can still use contraceptives.  (See picture at the top of this column.) They can go out and buy them, using their own money.   They have no constitutional right to free contraception. But none of that will stop liberal politicians, rightfully worried about the midterms, from continuing to portray the court’s decision as a declaration of war against women.

Liberals understandably were hoping for a different decision from the Supreme Court, one that put what they see as women’s rights over religious rights.  The question now before a different court — the court of public opinion — is whether a decision they don’t like will turn out to be good news for them come November.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • gbandy

    A very important point about the whole Hobby Lobby case is Hobby Lobby only objected to paying for 4 out of 20 methods of birth control meds. Yet prior to Obamacare the individuals bought all their own birth control. Seems the Liberals are never happy with something which was forced upon the employers yet will complain if the new freebies are not enough.

    • Shane

      This is all about giving free stuff to young women in exchange for their vote. This generation of young women feel incredibly entitlted to free stuff from the government and special treatment.

      • JMax

        This is not “free”. This is without copay. Employee coverage is fruit of their labor, the same as a paycheck.

    • JMax

      Prior to Obamacare Hobby Lobby’s covered all forms of contraceptives.

      None of this is free to the employee. It simply means there is no copay. Insurance coverage is fruit of the employees’ labor, just the same as a paycheck.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      There are two problems here as I see it.

      1) So-called liberals are equating the not-adding-of-a-new-entitlement to the *removal* of a civil right. Orwellian for sure.

      2) Leftists, despite their professed hatred of totalitarianism, want totalitarianism — as long as it’s their world view that’s calling the shots.

      a) They’re trying to control language by listing words we cannot use publicly or privately, and by redefining terms and phrases like “migrant” instead of illegal alien and reversing the definition of “tolerance”.

      b) They want the state’s ideology to override personal conscience and religious sentiment. It’s no longer “if you don’t like it, change the channel”. It’s now “If you don’t like it, we’ll fine you.” Soon, and this IS coming, “We’ll jail you.”

      They’re all about the big, secular state. Government is their god because they’ve thrown off the real One. They need something to believe that’s bigger than themselves, whether they want to accept that or not. But, putting man or human institutions up as God has caused monstrosities to occur in human history.

      How they can say that the creeping beast of fascism comes from an ideology that wants SMALLER government and free-market capitalism is the ultimate in mind-bending.

  • Brian Stover

    Why should employers be responsible for providing their workers with health insurance and retirement plans in the first place?
    Pay everyone a proper amount and let them choose their own.

    • scott autry

      I am guessing, but I would bet it is cheaper than paying them a “proper amount” that would achieve the same level of benefits overall.

      I’m fairly ignorant when it comes to business matters, truly, but, isn’t part of the idea of pension plans, especially for bigger corporations, that the costs are deferred and the large amount of cash in the pool can be invested, growing it beyond what the company has to put in for each worker (and what the worker contributes)?

      How many regular jobs these days have retirement plans? I work for a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company, and the company does not match any of the 401K contributions. (In South Korea, the company has to set aside 1 month’s salary for each year you have worked for the company.)

      I hate the health insurance and health industry in the US. I see it as legalized extortion like the mafia: You have to pay for protection, because if you don’t, the medical industry will financial break your knees crippling you.

      But, in order to match what health insurance offers — protection from the extreme high costs of health care in the US — how much money would the company have to fork out each month? And how much of that money would never be touched much, because most people don’t break bones, have heart attacks or strokes or get cancer and so on that often…

      …which is one reason I hate the insurance industry…..You pay in it forever – just so the medical industry wouldn’t take away your first and second and third born if you should happen to get sick – but if you die suddenly – what have you accomplished? (Paying for all the other insured people who die old.)

      And with a father sitting in hospice care waiting to die – after being told he only had 3 months to live 5 years ago and having lived a semi-invalid all this time — and having watched how miserable my grandparents were the last few years of their lives —— I’m pretty dang angry at the medical and pharmaceutical industries drive to —- keep you alive at all costs – for as long as they possibly can.

      They say it is the noble thing to do.

      I guess if you have no religion (including any belief in an afterlife) I might buy that.

      But, I think it is primary (even if subconsciously) a desire to — keep all those billions and billions and billions of dollars rolling in…

      Extremely sick old people are a boon for those people. Buckets and buckets of Krugerrands for them to gobble down. [I'm having an image of a medieval painting of hell where one soul is pooping gold out his bum....]

      I dislike this system much.

      But, it is the one we have, and no company is going to raise worker base salaries to the point they can be protected from the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance mafia….

      • AtlHarleyDave

        Companies pay for health insurance because the government incents them to do it because it’s tax-deductible.. Government involvement. Insurance rates and meds are high because, you guessed it – government involvement through incredible regulation, a lack of tort reform, etc. Find a problem in our society, dig deep enough and you’ll find government involvement, over-regulation, etc.

    • Wheels55

      Until about 25 or 30 years ago, employers could, tax free, give company cars and entertainment “expense accounts” to employees – making those part of the compensation package. The advantage of paying someone a little less and giving them a fully paid driving experience tax free was a great perk for the employee-executive and usually cheaper for the company. Now taxed, company cars are still a nice perk, but costs the employee something. Entertainment is now taxed disadvantaged to the company as well.
      Health care/insurance remains one of the few tax free benefits a company can give. It’s great that way. Forcing a liberal opinion on what has to be given to employees is not at all good. As Obamcare continues to implode, watch for the individual taxation of heath care/insurance given to employees. Washingtin can never leave a good thing alone.

  • Ryan Nichols

    According to the left. Women hobby lobby employees are all going to be raped at some point. And hobby lobby is going to force them to have their babies. This is how the left sees the country and women. That our women are just rape victims waiting to happen. And the most important thing in a woman’s rights is her right to have free abortions. The left is insane.

    • Shane

      And all men are rapists. Libs lie about 20% of college women being sexually assaulted, but what they consider assault is freaking ridiculous.

  • Blakely1

    Now Liberals do not always refer to the it As The War on Women but
    they are now on the offensive.

    Just today there were 2 columns on rape & several others on the Horrors of the
    Hobby Lobby decision.
    Rape is their biggie. When George Wills wrote an article that cited that
    statistics were being exaggerated by Liberals, they were ready to crucify them.
    College Campuses & the Military are the big targets.They actually don’t have
    the sense to give provable cases but rely on girls who are too drunk to remember
    what had happened so claim it was not consensual. They have not been
    given a rape test yet want schools to discipline the partner on their word

    alone.
    Just last week there was a picture & headline about a girl at Catholic Univ.
    who had a similar experience & all the libs were outraged.
    This, of course, was a double header because they had a rape case

    being ignored by a Religious School.
    How to fight them is the question. The MSM is the big problem.

    • Shane

      Will was right about those stats being phony. If a guy asks a women for sex more than once, the feminists who did that study considered it a sexual assault!

  • scott autry

    Couple of Points: 1. If you believe religion is a backward, superstitious, potentially dangerous holdover from the dark ages (pre-1968), and you hope it continues to die out in American society, and you support quietly trying to speed up the demise through things like the ACLU and fighting small crosses on flags in (where was it?) San Diego or public schools that dare use the term “Christmas Holidays”, and you vote, you are almost certainly a Democrat.

    2. This is what happens when more and more public discourse becomes dominated by Advocacy and Liberation:

    Of course, politicians and political parties are going to be about advocacy.

    But, in today’s America, advocacy (and liberating the next “oppressed” category in the society) is the hallmark of Higher Education (and filtering down into lower levels of public education) and Journalism and Hollywood – in short — in any liberal-dominated social institution…

    One of the Big Problems with This? – It does not increase freedom. It does not grow the society. It closes minds and Balkanizes.

    For example, if you walk into a Women’s Studies Center or Department on any college campus across the nation, do you think you will find —- a lot of diversity of thought? People hired specifically to create a balance of socio-political ideas related to women – all around the thought-spectrum – so that students who sign up for courses or the major will be exposed to a wide-variety of ideas/opinions on the matter – in an objective light – so they can think for themselves?

    Or, do you think your going to find an echo chamber – one in which any student thinking of taking their courses or joining their major —— should already know well ahead of time —- if their own thoughts are going to be ripped to pieces or fit right in…?

    The Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be above politics. Yes, they are appointed by politicians and confirmed by politicians, but the ideal they were supposed to uphold is the same as the media says its institution is founded on: Applying the self-described ideals of the institution – which in these two cases means – using Objectivity to dispassionately examine the facts (in relation to the Law for the SC) and acting accordingly.

    But, the left has been in favor of Advocacy in the courts for a few decades now. When we are talking about something as righteous as “liberating” oppressed people’s – you shouldn’t wait around for corrupt politicians to get around to changing laws – especially when one party is so ignorant and backward, as are the flyover voters for them — That would be immoral — Which justifies rulings that don’t fit the law but will add legal precedent – in an effort to legislate from the judge’s chair.

    Two central tenets of today’s liberalism is: We are the noble liberators (fighting a bad society that must be changed/revolutionized), and our righteousness justifies our actions — even when they fall outside the bounds of what the old white men in the past established to create the oppression in the first place…

    This is why Tea Party rallies can be peace (but still vilified in the press) – but Occupy Wall Street or World Bank protesters can riot in the streets (and be defended and even applauded in the press).

    Advocacy and Liberation…

    Those are the two guiding principles of the Left.

    What is really bad is — they dominate almost exclusively key social institutions that shape your minds: Hollywood, Higher Education, and the Media…

    (And conservative voices can be driven and kept out of those places, because it is the moral thing to do….)

  • Mike Lidikay

    That is all true and three things come to mind. There is a battle between people that what Government to tell everyone what they want them to do and people that want to tell themselves what to do. There are limits to what all Americans can be forced to do by Government.

  • james7coffey

    Women have no right to free contraceptives. In 2014 America that is a radical idea.

  • ted

    The Progressives don’t need anything but a media-fueled excuse to excoriate Republicans about anything. Get used to it and try and discover how to fight back. BUT DON’T FORGET ROUGHLY 50% OF REPUBLICANS ARE WOMEN!

  • firststater

    Repubs need to redine this as the war on moral decay, decency and common sense

  • JASVN67

    A war on women, really? This claim on the part of Democrats is an insult to any woman, with a mind of her own! This President has been tagged as being the worst in office, since WW ll. The Democrats are desperate for something to stick on the wall. Mud slinging is all they have left. Americans were duped by a wolf in sheep’s clothing but they are finally waking up!

  • ogdenlane

    Even if it IS expensive, Hillary gets $250K a speech; imagine how many women she can help if she amps up the speeches.

  • Skip in VA

    This is just another way the dems are obfuscating the REAL issues facing America: Benghazi, the IRS, NSA, Iran, the Middle East in flames, etc. You see, if they can get the argument started (again) on this phony war on women, we’ll be too involved in our conservative argument and (they hope) we’ll lose sight of the real argument. This is a tried and true method the dems have come to employ as they try to hide Obama in a closet. My Momma always said, “if you throw a rock at a gang of dogs, the one that got hit is the one that hollers.”

  • Brian Stover

    There is no war on women.
    As the husband of one, and the father of two, I would be pissed if there were.
    Just because someone else will not pay for something does not deny your right to purchase it.

    P.S. Though we often disagreed, I miss Legal Eagle and his comments.

    • Stimpy

      I don’t miss the legal pigeon one bit.

  • Mikal Gastpipe

    The Democrats MAY be a LOT of things, but ONE THING they are NOT, is STUPID! And the right could take a lesson from them. No matter HOW racist they are, no matter how misogynist they are, no matter how ANTI-American they are, they STAY on message and CIRCLE the wagons!

    • ogdenlane

      Example: A liberal guy told me after the first Obama election was that, even though I did not vote for him, nobody could call our nation racist again. As you can see from Obama and Holder’s speeches, he was wrong. Dems don’t let facts get in their way.

      • Mikal Gastpipe

        You’re right. They do NOT! They only APPEAL to knee jerk EMOTION instead of long term REASON! “PERCEPTIONS are MORE IMPORTANT than FACTS AND REASON!”-Celinda Lake global warming NUTJOB and Obama Confidante 3/24/2014

  • Shane

    Yes, Democrats are widely exaggerating the result of this SC decision in order to stir up women voters. Libs have been howling about a phony GOP war on women for years, while ignoring the Muslim war on women which has been going on for 1,400 years. Liberals are such hypocrites and liars; they will say anything to win an election. Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare and they are lying about this SC decision; libs believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to politics.

    • Phillip MacHarg

      And they lied repeatedly about Mitt Romney during the last election. Most everyday the NY Times would print a smear piece on him such as he was a high school bully, or that he abused the family dog, or that a person died because of lack of healthcare due to a business decision at Bain. All lies, all front page news stories. The main stream liberal news sources will stop at nothing to destroy Republican presidential candidates. Wait till the next election with Hillary. They will ramp up the smear machine even more. Whatever it takes to get the Clinton’s back in the White House.

  • MaleMatters

    “Gender equality” has long been junked in favor of giving women whatever feminists want them to have.

    Make a list of women’s rights in the reproductive world and in the world of children, then next to it a list of men’s rights. See any semblance of equality?

    To me, society consists of two “worlds”: the world of work (the productive world) and the world of children (the reproductive world). Obviously each needs the other for its survival, so both are needed for civilization’s survival. Hence, the two worlds are equally important.

    Despite this equal importance, what do you suppose is the result thus far of the 40-year-old push for “gender equality”? It seems to be this: We are ending men’s dominance in the world of work (The Economist at http://www.economist.com/node/15174489: “women are gradually taking over the workplace”) and, largely because “women are the ones who give birth,” preserving women’s dominance in the world of children. (This does not, I would think, bode well for the hope of a violence-free society.)

    See how we continue to exclude men from the world of children:

    “In movies, dads not treated as equal to moms” http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/in-movies-dads-not-treated-as-equals-to-moms/

    “Eek! A Male!” http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/eek-a-male/

    Now see how we push harder and harder to fully integrate women at all levels in the world of work — even as women themselves resist:

    “Does the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

  • MaleMatters

    “Gender equality” has long been junked in favor of giving women whatever feminists want them to have.

    Make a list of women’s rights in the reproductive world and the world of children, then next to it a list of men’s rights. See any semblance of equality?

    To me, society consists of two “worlds”: the world of work (the productive world) and the world of children (the reproductive world). Obviously each needs the other for its survival, so both are needed for civilization’s survival. Hence, the two worlds are equally important.

    Despite this equal importance, what do you suppose is the result thus far of the 40-year-old push for “gender equality”? It seems to be this: We are ending men’s dominance in the world of work (The Economist at http://www.economist.com/node/15174489: “women are gradually taking over the workplace”) and, largely because “women are the ones who give birth,” preserving women’s dominance in the world of children. (This does not, I would think, bode well for the hope of a violence-free society.)

    See how we continue to exclude men from the world of children:

    “In movies, dads not treated as equal to moms” http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/in-movies-dads-not-treated-as-equals-to-moms/

    “Eek! A Male!” http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/eek-a-male/

    Now see how we push harder and harder to fully integrate women at all levels in the world of work — even as women themselves resist:

    “Does the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

  • ScranunSlim

    Bernie Goldberg is the only reason to watch The O’Bloviator (O’Reilly). . BUT!
    he fouled up what an abortifacient does: “The companies objected to some of the (contraceptive) methods saying they amount to abortion, since they MAY PREVENT EMBRYOS FROM IMPLANTING IN THE WOMB (emphasis added).”

    The companies objected to FOUR abortifacients drugs NOT because they “prevent” conception (they pay for 16 “preventors”) but because they DESTROY a fertilized egg “the morning after.” Remember – that “zygote” already has a different DNA than the mother.

    Not enough has been made of the four dissenting justices wanting to FORCE every enterprise in the country to pay for something that should be morally repugnant, fanaticism, pure and simple.

    • Phillip Macharg

      When you have a Godless president this is what you get.

  • 4deuce

    So, when will these Justice Crusaders take on two of government’s biggest injustices – ObamaCare and Medicare? Do these so-called “health” programs really display our Federal Government’s compassion for US citizens when they pay less than 100% of all of our necessary medical expenses? So, if this is true, can I declare that Obama is waging a personal war on all American citizens by not covering 100% of their medical expenses? And if some ego-bloated men and women declare that they NEED to feel better about themselves and MUST be made to look like Brad Pitt or Scarlett Johansen via the skills of a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, is the government’s refusal to pay for those facial and body transformations a formal declaration of war on those American men and women. See? The Justice Crusaders will not make plastic surgery demands if those responsible for satisfying them are Liberals. Instead, these “nice to haves” will not become personal imperatives until the denial of them can be blamed on Republicans/conservatives. Justice and Logic are concepts quite selectively applied by Liberal Justice Crusaders.

  • k962

    How many unborn women were killed by Planned Parenthood today? That is not only war but genocide!

  • El_Tigre

    The funny thing about patty murray is that she ran as “a mother in tennis shoes.” Some mother. I wonder if she told her children how many of their siblings she offed.

  • Brian Stover

    We’re celebrating Independence Day today.
    Though government has real constitutional power and responsibilities, we have demanded more from it than was intended. And much more than it can effectively deliver.
    We are under more government control today, than our Founding Fathers were under the British. And if we were justified in fighting for our independence then (and we were) we should become more independent now.
    Otherwise, every day other than July 4th will be Dependence Day.

  • Phillip MacHarg

    I am always a bit astonished by those that wonder why healthcare is so insanely expensive in America. Once upon a time, employer health insurance plans reimbursed people for only accident and sickness related claims. Costs were by and large reasonable. People realized it was their own responsibility to maintain a healthy lifestyle and pay for preventative healthcare. Then, of course, things changed and government thrust itself into the business of dictating employer health benefit coverage. State legislatures (I speak as a Californian) began enacting legislation in the late ’70s forcing companies to cover pregnancy “as any other illness.” From that piece of legislation started a multitude of government benefit mandates exacted on employer health plans over 30 years, now accelerated under Obamacare, that will surely drive health costs to new unprecedented heights.

    • Seattle Sam

      Health care and education are about the only industries where prices are rising far faster than the rate of inflation. And that’s because the purchases are heavily subsidized by government. Doctors, hospitals and colleges can all raise prices without seeing much drop in demand volume because people are by and large not paying with their own money. Imagine restaurants worked the same way. Instead of looking at the menu and the prices of the various foods, you’d simply ask the waiter, “Is lobster covered”?

      • El_Tigre

        Wait until the $15 per hour minimum wage hits in Seattle.

      • Drew Page

        Sam – The “rate of inflation” is more than a little misleading. The government gets to define what the “inflation” is, but excludes things like food, fuel, utilities, insurance premiums, tuition expenses and government taxes. The government says these things shouldn’t be included in determining the cost of living. Just try living without them.

    • wally12

      The major problem is that the democrats and others have successfully convinced most people that health care is a constitutional right of every citizen. The constitution doesn’t state that right. Health care is the responsibility of the individual. It should be paid by the individual and not by companies. That is where some of the problem started since competing companies began to provide more and more benefits to get new employees and to retain others. Once that happened, it is logical that the employee began to feel that health care was not his/her responsibility. Also, when that happened, the liberals saw an opportunity to expand on the health care right angle. That is were we are at today. The only solution that I can see is to reverse the law to state that health care is the responsibility of the individual and the make all citizens as one total group where the insurance companies would be all inclusive. Companies that now provide health care plans would be required to drop insurance coverage and to pay each employee the equivalent wage increase based on the exist coverage cost they incur. Insurance companies would be allowed to compete in all states in the free market. ETC, ETC, ETC.

    • Stimpy

      Also funny how tort reform could probably reduce medical costs in this country by 35%. So why is it that Republican lawmakers are in favor and Democrat lawmakers oppose it tooth and nail? The liberals like to believe they are pure and just and high-minded … but they are in thrall to greedy trial lawyers. The natural result is that we all pay through the nose for medical care. The bleeding heart liberals will cry that we need multi-million dollar lawsuits to bring justice and relief. We all know what it is really about — political donations from the trial lawyer industry. This is corruption pure and simple … and legal extortion.

      • mcveen

        Of course you are right Stimpy. What can we do about it since most legislators are lawyers? I propose that Republicans, Independents, & Tea Partiers start a massive media campaign against lawyers to help average Americans understand what the lawyer class is really about.

        • Stimpy

          Sounds like a start. Lawyers have really messed up this country. Every company out there is afraid of being sued for one reason or another. Medical malpractice suits are a scourge. The worst one I ever heard about?A “wrongful birth” suit — the baby wasn’t perfect and the doctor should have warned them. Really? A legal degree is a license to commit extortion.

  • Gene

    I just don’t understand how killing a child has now become understood as health care?

    • El_Tigre

      Democrats, Deamons, Devils, Death, Depravity, etc. Seeing a pattern here?

    • Stimpy

      Sure, preventive health care. No baby, no worries … at least from the liberal perspective.

  • lark2

    This SCOTUS decision does not prevent anyone from practicing birth control or obtaining an abortion. These companies don’t want anything to do with facilitating abortion … neither does the Catholic Church for it’s employees. The abortion-inducing pills, morning after pills, pregnancy & sex disease prevention pills and devices are available anywhere at low cost or FREE. Taxpayers – religious or not, provide over $500,000,000 each year to “Planned Parenthood” and they provide these things for FREE. No woman is prevented from exercising their right to “choose” or making their own “health care decisions”. There are many women who just “use” this issue to make political points for the Democrats. The women who actually believe the “misagyny

  • LAPhil

    The women’s movement has become nothing more than a bunch of whining, bratty victocrats who think they’re entitled to anything they want at someone else’s expense in the name of “women’s health”, and if you oppose them you’re engaging in a “war on women”. They lost in the Supreme Court and now they’re just going to keep on whining. Get over it!

    • TheOriginalDonald

      I DESERVE FREE BIRTH CONTROL!-Sandra Fluke

      • LAPhil

        That’s about the size of it.

      • toddyo1935

        Is she implying there is one self-respecting male who would want to give her the need to avoid responsibility? The woman gives me the creeps as do most feminist eugenicist “progressives.

        • TheOriginalDonald

          I DESERVE FREE BIRTH CONTROL TOO!-Manny Ramirez

    • El_Tigre

      That is not how the left works. They just keep on trying, revoting, etc until the outcome they wanted occurs and then they stop, until the next issue comes along.
      Notice how that sex offender bill clinton is not registered.

    • 4deuce

      But, I truly suspect that what we call “the womens’ movement” is actually shrinking in size. The leadership of these so-called womens groups are shrill, overbearing drama queens who speak in harsh, nasty, offensive, better-than-thou tones whenever a microphone is anywhere near them. They seem to be loudly angry and outraged all the time – about everything that is part of the human condition. I really do not think such women are those who can command much respect from the average American woman of today. In fact, many of these womens’ group leaders are so extreme and devoid of true humanity that they would be ideal candidates to star in some new sort of TV reality program – all of which celebrate vile, unpopular people and those devoid of any decent motives not involving their own egos. They have become their own biggest enemies.

  • Not in my time

    My question is, is pregnancy a woman’s health issue? I never knew that getting pregnant was a form of illness or disease! Now a condom can prevent certain diseases such as HIV, and I know that there are devices similar for women. I see no problem with considering those devices as important women’s health products.

  • lemonfemale

    As someone says below, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 “contraceptives”. The four that may flush a baby they do not provide.

    This is important and should be widely disseminated. You want the Pill, you want sterilization, condoms, or a diaphragm, Hobby Lobby will provide. IUDs they will not, Plan B (so-called) they will not.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381637/hobby-lobby-actually-lavishes-contraception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock

  • philaclectic

    Jeeezzz, I can’t wait until November, there’s going to be so many disappointed reptards……. Last time I looked, we had a libtard majority – or did Mitt win and I just missed it?

    • toddyo1935

      Oh great one, please pass on some of your wisdom! At least you admitted the current crop of low information voters are ‘tards.

  • Clyde9

    The bottom line still is: Hobby Lobby – pill prevent pregnancy good, pill terminate pregnancy bad.

  • Charles David Edinger

    I’m not certain why Mr. Goldberg falls in this column for the Obama/Media confected lie that the Hobby Lobby decision is about access to women’s contraceptives. It isn’t!!! Hobby Lobby stipulated they were willing to support 16 of the 20 mandated types of women’s contraceptive drugs & devices, but Obama’s continuing goal has been to force American citizens with strong moral & religious objections to the murder of unborn children, or abortion, to become complicit in our ongoing national genocide, which has snuffed out the lives of over 60MM children since Roe v Wade.

    This is an old Marxist/Progressive strategy called desensitization, with the goal being to shift American consciousness to accept abortion as routine. We won’t, & a growing number of Americans recognize abortion as the government-sanctioned taking of one innocent human life for the convenience of another. Obama plays games with words constantly, as did Stalin & Hitler, so watching what he does rather than what he says publicly is very important. The Hobby Lobby case was a win for individual rights over abortion, not contraception. CDE

    • rs724503

      He doesn’t. I think you should read the column more carefully. He’s repeating what the Dems say about this issue.

    • http://Www.soulkuhl.com Traveler1055

      Thats more like 150 Million more welfare babies as they mostly are having babies before they can even get out of High School. I am conservative am so very tired of paying for food stamps, meal plans and
      Welfare to this group so I say no more babies. Sterilize them all!!!

      • Paula

        Libs would scream GENOCIDE!

      • JMax

        A Margaret Sanger disciple, huh?

  • Jenn

    all that needs to happen now is to totally get rid of all types of contraception (this includes the dismantling of all Planned Parenthood mills) and start taking more responsibility for our actions…

  • Paula

    The liberals gave us words like: homophobic. Islamophobic. Now they will give us Femiphobic. Don’t agree with progressive liberal and get a label.

    • D Parri

      Will they also feel a need to join the men in the fight by declaring the WOMB–the War On Men Battle?

    • El_Tigre

      Liberals are moralphobic.

      • Paula

        A good one. And being typical socialists they would use that label on conservatives.

  • guest

    Nice to see youve blocked Legal Eagle…now you can all agree with each other without any need to think..

    • D Parri

      It appears that the Beagle worked very hard to get himself blocked. Trolls are trolls, no matter what bridge they try to hide under.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        He did, D Parri. He was even daring us to block him a while back while flinging as much personal mud around as he could dream up. As I wrote above, we gave him far more latitude than we really should have.

    • Walter Peck

      You don’t look blocked to me.

      • D Parri

        That’s what I was thinking also. Different bridge, same troll.

    • allen goldberg

      Quite to the contrary, guest. Legal Eagle was a nasty shill for the Huffington Post liberals, and was as valuable as athletes feet. He got was he or she deserved.

    • sgthappyg

      Damn – Legal Eagle has been blocked?? It was always fun to read the banters between Eagle and John Daly. UNBLOCK THE EAGLE!! We may not like him, but on occasion he does stimulate the conversation to unconventional directions.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Hi sgthappyg.

        Legal Eagle isn’t going to be unblocked. Other posters were becoming very irritated with how personal his attacks were becoming, and for some unexplainable reason, he couldn’t stop writing about male genitalia. He was given ample warning to stop, and quite frankly, we were becoming tired of having to moderate his posts. In his time here, over 600 of his posts were flagged by other posters. Most people didn’t see a lot of the really nasty stuff because it was deleted fairly quickly.

        No one on this website has ever been blocked for expressing unpopular opinions, and no one ever will. We have a few returning trolls who try to claim otherwise, but they’re simply wrong.

        Once the level of discourse reaches a certain limit, however, and warnings go ignored, action unfortunately has to be taken.

        To be perfectly frank, Legal Eagle was allowed to get away with far more than most posters would have, precisely because we wanted to make it clear that we welcome unpopular opinions. It was his increasingly ugly discourse that eventually got him booted.

        • sgthappyg

          Okay – roger that. I was not aware of some of the uglier posts that had been deleted. His attacks were personal with no logic at times. Thank you for your response, Mr. Daly.

        • Greg Gutless

          Just to set the record straight. This was your last response to Legal Eagle. You are spineless gutless anddickless.

          Good point. Bend over and take it, like legal eagle does.

          http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/community-organizer-way-head/

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You are spineless gutless anddickless.<<

            Hell, you should hear about this unstable little troll we regularly deal with. We banned the little twerp a long time ago, yet he comes back again and again and again, like some obsessed movie character.

            Talk about gutless, this kid posts all sorts of tough talk using nothing but pseudonyms. That's right, he acts like some hard-boiled menace while cowering behind fake names the entire time! lol

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I believe I remember that guy. He got his butt kicked so regularly in debate that all he eventually had left was a lot of whining, professional wrestler-speak, and bizarre expressions of his sexual perversions. No wonder he hid behind anonymity.

            He eventually got the boot after posing as the people he obsessed over, and then tried to rationalize it by claiming he had no choice. lol. I can’t imagine anyone tying their self-worth to a website they claim to hate, but strangely enough, that’s what he did… and continues to do.

            Rumor has it that he still hides behind screen names (even sometimes posing as his wife) while trying to sound like a tough guy. Talk about a gutless, spineless, little coward. I mean, who does that? Right?

          • Ben Dover

            Name one debate you think you kicked my butt in.

            Once again so everyone knows who the real pervert is – this is your last response to Legal Eagle:

            “Bend over and take it, like legal eagle does.”
            http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/community-organizer-way-head/

          • Integrity

            Taken way out of context, Ben. It is ok; there is nothing wrong with you being intellectually inferior to John. I find your feeble attempts to appear intelligent quite amusing. However, it makes you look even more pathetic when you resort to lies. QED

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’ll go ahead and help the poor guy out: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bend%20over%20and%20take%20it

            It should be noted, however, that after I wrote that, legal eagle DID twist the statement into something sexual and graphic, just like IHF is trying to do. Not sure if its intellectual inferiority or just the minds of a couple of pervs.

          • Ben Dover

            You and Webb are intellectual lightweights and will always be relegated to jive time and working for has-beens like Goldberg. With the addition of plum loco Perlutsky you are quite a Foreign Legion of failures. I have wiped the floor with you losers every time until you finally had no choice but to resort to the censorshit coward’s way out.

            That you consider urbandictionary.com to be authoritative speaks volumes of your stupidity. But recall you sang quite a different aria when you were on the receiving end

            You: Grab some kleenex, Tammy Faye.

            Me: You started it Handsome Johnny. Now you grab your ankles and take it like a man.

            http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-art-of-the-spit-take-is-needed-now-more-than-ever/

          • Ben Dover

            You are nothing but a dumb cult follower and it doesn’t matter what you think or if you think. QED.

          • Ben Dover

            You will never shut me up Webb-Master-bater. And I will continue to taunt you until you man up. Now exactly how many Democrats do you think are racist? Still waiting for your response you gutless puke.

  • semmy

    If you feel like it and you have TONS of free time on your hands with absolutely nothing better to do, search out and read the letters to the editor page in my hometown newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle since this decision came down. The amount of misinformation and disinformation that’s out there is mind blowing! If you didn’t know better, you would think the SCOTUS totally outlawed contraception across the board for every woman in the country.

  • D Parri

    So, if someone does not support providing free condoms to men does that mean that they are misandrists? Why should women be protected and men are not?

    This is not a War On Men Battle going on, is it? I’m concerned that this WOMB could get nasty.

    • equinox

      Question if anyone knows (I’m too lazy to read the Bill): Does Obamacare pay for men’s condoms? My hunch is that the answer is No. If so, does this mean that the Dems are waging a war on Men?

  • D Parri

    Too bad contraceptives weren’t available at no cost to Hillarious Clinton’s parents.

    • http://Www.soulkuhl.com Traveler1055

      No Kidding

    • El_Tigre

      There could be a looong list for that thought. LOL

  • Cnychu

    I wonder how many people, crying Liberal’s in particular, have read the actual decision. Page 9 reads that only 4 of the 20 forms of contraceptives are allowed to be excluded. Hobby Lobby-paid insurance pays for the other 16. But logic, reason, and facts evidently just don’t factor into the issue. Liberals, do you all just need something to whine about, again? Can you ever enjoy the fact that you won, twice, when Mr hope & change became president? Or are you all just so pissed that for two years the Dems controlled both houses of Congress and this genius you fawned over did nothing other than the ACA? Can’t wait for November. Tissue sales will again increase as you cry again over…well you’ll find something.

    • JMax

      The Court released an order on Tuesday saying that the decision applied to all 20 forms of contraception. http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160–politics.html

      Dems did NOT control Congress for two years. The Senate had only 59 Dem votes after Scott Brown was sworn in February 4, 2010. And only 59 votes until Al Franken was sworn in July 7, 2009. In all, the Senate was in legislative session for only 77 days while having 60 votes. Those are facts.

      • semmy

        The fact of the matter, JMax, is that HobbyLobby is providing for those 16 out of 20 forms. The left keeps ignoring that part.

        • D Parri

          Absolutely correct. However, the spin is not the same for the DemLibs if they include the fact that Hobby Lobby’s issue was not about contraception–it was about abortion.

          The Catholic closely-held corps can rely upon the SCOTUS decision to support their commitment to not supporting contraception, as a part of their religious belief and freedom.

          • JMax

            None of the 4 contraceptives causes abortion.

          • semmy

            Not everybody agrees with that, JMax. It’s your opinion, not a fact.

          • JMax

            No, it is not my opinion. It is scientific fact. Anyone who “believes” otherwise is believing an opinion, one not based on fact.

          • Integrity

            Doesn’t it all depend on when you believe life actually begins? For the link you provided, does it not assume that life begins at implantation? If that is to be held true, then why is abortion legal? Who gets to determine when life begins? QED

          • El_Tigre

            You better read your article again. It is the author’s opinion that it does not.
            Here is a fact for you, from conception to natural death is one continuous line without interruption, unless nature or mankind interferes. Why are we trying to force doctors to abandon the Hippocratic Oath?

          • semmy

            Sorry Jmax, but you are declaring your opinion to be a fact. The four types of 20 birth control methods that Hobby Lobby has an issue with are NOT contraceptives. Those four are used AFTER insemination, such as the “morning after pill”. Contraceptives (the 16) are used before sex occurs. Certain people, like the Green family, believe that life begins at conception, so anything preventing that potential life from germinating is abortive. Though it is their opinion, there is no “fact” saying the opinion is incorrect. YOU are saying their opinion is incorrect.
            You seem to be saying that your opinion carries more weight than theirs does.

          • JMax

            I am not declaring my opinion to be fact. I am presenting facts from medical experts that NONE of these 4 products produces an abortion by any definition of the word. They all prevent fertilization of an egg.

            http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/iud-intrauterine-device

            http://www.livescience.com/29215-how-plan-b-works.html

            You are terribly mis-informed about IUDs. They remain in place in a woman for months at a time, so obviously they are not used AFTER insemination. They prevent insemination.

            Morning after pills also PREVENT insemination.

            “so anything preventing that potential life from germinating is abortive.”

            So no masturbation by employees?

            “Though it is their opinion, there is no “fact” saying the opinion is incorrect.”

            I’ve just shown you that there is.

            “YOU are saying their opinion is incorrect.”

            I am proving that their opinion is incorrect.

            No, I’m saying science carries more weight than their uniformed opinion does.

          • semmy

            Okay, after this I’m done because there’s no bigger waste of time than arguing with a stranger on the internet.
            I’m not even going to bother addressing what you wrote here other than to repeat that those four methods that are objected to take effect AFTER fertilization. You are very misinformed yourself if you think otherwise. An IUD and the “morning after” pill prevent a fertilized egg from gestating.
            And I’m going to say, again, that you are unfairly disregarding the opinions and feelings of the Hobby Lobby people and declaring them to be WRONG because some doctors happen to back you up. That’s too bad. And I’m sorry that so many people in this country are just as intolerant and misinformed.
            Happy trails.

          • JMax

            “other than to repeat that those four methods that are objected to take effect AFTER fertilization.”

            Does your browser not allow you to click on the links I provided, or is science and the word of the National Association of OB/GYNs just so many words to you? All of these methods PREVENT fertilization. As the links I’ve provided (two of many I could provide) show, I am not at all misinformed.

            I will always disregard opinions that I know to be counter-factual. And “feelings” don’t justify breaking the law. It’s not SOME doctors. It’s many of the most recognized doctors in their field.

            I note that you call me misinformed without providing one single medical or scientific source that refutes my information. Just……feelings.

          • Integrity

            “You are terribly mis-informed about IUDs. They remain in place in a
            woman for months at a time, so obviously they are not used AFTER
            insemination. They prevent insemination.”

            From one of your favorite sources, Wikipedia, “An alternative to emergency contraceptive pills is the copper-T intrauterine device
            (IUD) which can be used up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse to
            prevent pregnancy. Insertion of an IUD is more effective than use of
            Emergency Contraceptive Pills – pregnancy rates when used as emergency
            contraception are the same as with normal IUD use. IUDs may be left in
            place following the subsequent menstruation to provide ongoing
            contraception (3–10 years depending upon type).”

            If the egg gets fertilized sometime during those 5 days prior to using the IUD, can or does inserting the IUD destroy the fertilized egg? Just curious.

            It never ends. LOL & QED

          • JMax

            No, it prevents it from being implanted into the uterus.

          • Integrity

            LOL. So what happens to the fertilized egg when the IUD prevents implantation? QED

          • JMax

            It’s sloughed off just like 50 to 80% of fertilized eggs.

          • Integrity

            And, had the IUD not been used, one might conclude that the fertilized egg could have successfully implanted. Hence, regardless of whether you agree with their view or not, people that believe life begins at conception could argue that the IUD, in this case, has the potential to destroy a life, even if it indirectly does so. QED

          • JMax

            Swimming pools, automobiles, a can of Raid, electricity, all kinds of things have the potential to destroy a life.

            The question eventually becomes does the possibility that a contraceptive MIGHT IN RATE CASES do what nature itself does 50-80% of the time override the public good of eliminating co-pays for contraceptives.

          • Integrity

            Are you resorting to the public good argument because you are unable to refute my points? Yes, many things can destroy a life. Accidents are one thing, but intentional acts are another. All of this is irrelevant to the original case at hand anyhow. By the way, who gets to determine the public good? Our benevolent Government which can do no wrong? An administration that allows our federal agencies to be politicized cannot be trusted. QED

          • JMax

            The intent of the IUD is to prevent fertilization. That in some cases an IUD might prevent a fertilized egg from implantation is an accident, which is one of your “one things”. And I would expect such occurrences would be less common that the 50-80% of the time it occurs naturally.

            Yes our benevolent government. I’m not paranoid about our government. We elect our representatives and our government employees are our family, neighbors, and friends. Sometimes, like all of us, they make mistakes.

            What administration has allowed what federal agencies to be politicized?

          • Integrity

            LOL. You are quite clever JMAX as you do have a gift to twist words to support your narrative. Given its high success rate, when used within five days after unprotected sex to prevent both fertilization AND implantation, can you prove that all uses of the IUD in this instance are only intended to prevent fertilization? You cannot, and therefore, some of those uses could be viewed as intentional. It never ends. :)

            I believe our Government needs to be reigned in. Both parties are corrupt. Current; IRS, EPA. QED

          • JMax

            “can you prove that all uses of the IUD in this instance are only intended to prevent fertilization?”

            That is the doctors’ and manufacturers’ intention and conclusion. Should the 90, 95, 99% of employees who use these contraceptives as intended with the results as intended have to pay a copay when others don’t because there may be a very small incidence of unintended or unexpected results? Have you read the POSSIBLE side effects of your medications?

            If Hobby Lobby thinks it’s a sin to “kill unborn babies” why do they hire and pay employees who might commit that sin?

            Why doesn’t Hobby Lobby let its employees make the choice of which contraceptive best fits their situation and their religion? What about their free exercise of religion? If Hobby Lobby owners don’t like these types of contraception, they shouldn’t use them.

          • Integrity

            In other words, you cannot. QED

          • JMax

            Can the Greens (or you) prove that any uses of the IUD are not?

          • Integrity

            We cannot. Regardless of the veracity of their belief, there does exist a plausible argument based on fact that supports their beliefs. This is the only point I was ever making.

            I can’t speak for Hobby Lobby since I really have no clue what their beliefs are and I really don’t care. My guess is that their issue is with having to directly pay for something that they religiously find wrong. The employee is free to pay for whatever birth control they desire or even an abortion for that matter, with their own money. It is not a requirement that either of us think this is either fair or just.

            You and I both know that Hobby Lobby would be sued if they screened their employees for their religious beliefs. QED

          • JMax

            Yes, one can say that there is a small incidence of something that “ends life” upon which their beliefs can hang. However, knowing that the Greens are virulent Obama and Obamacare haters and that they didn’t really seem to care about what types of contraceptives they were covering until someone looking for a Supreme Court case brought it to their attention, MY belief is that their belief is suspect.

            Hobby Lobby does not and never did directly pay for these contraceptives. They paid money to their health insurance company which used it and money from other companies to pool funds and spread risk to cover a multitude of benefits for employees and their families.

            Ironically, for Hobby Lobby’s employees to pay for these services with “their own money” would mean Hobby Lobby more directly paying for them than through their insurance since it would eliminate the third party insurance company. Where does “their own money” come from? Hobby Lobby pays the employee for labor; the employee pays the pharmacy for the contraceptives. Hobby Lobby pays one way or another.

            So as far as their “beliefs” are concerned, they have gained nothing in court. Their real gain was to use “religion” to achieve a political goal.

          • Integrity

            So what. I think the beliefs of the people that rammed ACA down our throats are suspect as well. Perhaps the Government could print a gazillion dollar bill to pay for all of the health care. :) QED

          • JMax

            Suspect of what? That people should have access to health care? That people shouldn’t go broke from medical expenses?

            The government doesn’t have to print anything to pay for ACA. It reduces the deficit by more than a trillion dollars. But, yeah, I’m for single payer health care. Paid for by taxes, not by gazillion dollar bills.

          • Integrity

            The CBO does project that. However, if you care to put Google to use, you can easily find dissenting opinions that provide credible reasons for the disagreement. CBO has to estimate based on the current law, which Congress is likely to ignore when it creates problems such as unsustainable payments for doctors and hospitals. With a grain of salt. QED

          • JMax

            I’m sure dissenting opinions can be found. However, the CBO is non-partisan and extremely experienced at what they do. What evidence is there that Congress will ignore law? What unsustainable payments are you talking about?

          • Integrity
          • JMax

            I appreciate the link. I read it. Then I read about who wrote it. The American Enterprise Institute is rabidly right wing and certainly not a neutral source when it comes to the ACA.

            I think it’s ludicrous to say CBOs numbers are probably wrong because probably laws maybe will change over time and probably all changes maybe will be adverse.

          • Integrity

            The whole Internet is full of information from sources that has a bias one way or the other. The source may very well have a bias, but it takes more to discount their points than a statement about their left or right wing bias.

            Enjoyed the debate; have a nice weekend. QED

          • JMax

            What “corruption” are you talking about? There is no proven case of corruption at the IRS. I’m not even aware of accusations of corruption at the EPA.

            What facets of our Government (besides the NSA) needed to be reigned in?

          • Integrity

            Sigh! This debate would be useless because you are unable or unwilling to accept the premise that this current administration lacks credibility at best. QED

          • JMax

            I might be willing and able if I’m given specific examples that would show a general lack of credibility. A blanket statement proves nothing.

          • Integrity

            Just curious. Does pleading the fifth, losing over 2 years worth of emails, and the IRS’ extremely slow response to Congress, if at all, make you be at least a little bit suspicious? QED

          • JMax

            I’m a bit curious about Lois Lerner taking the fifth, although I would suspect that the idea was to tell Darryl Issa to go f**k himself. Her lawyer said it was because she didn’t want her testimony to be twisted by him and his committee. I’m curious to know why it is Lerner herself who brought the IG investigation to the public’s attention.

            I’m not at all curious about the lost emails. Most of them have been reproduced and the hard drive loss preceded the congressional committee’s investigation. The Bush administration “lost” 22 million emails regarding the outing of Valerie Plame. Issa said then it was because of software. I guess it happens. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/issa-blamed-ibm-software-loss-22-million

            What we do know about Lerner from the IG report is that she seems to be a poor manager. She is a civil servant, not a political appointee.

            There is no evidence of any wrong doing beyond an inappropriate methodology used by staff members to prioritize audits of applications for tax exempt status. There is no connection whatsoever between these audits and the White House.

          • Integrity

            I am on record stating that both parties are corrupt. It is hard for me to take you seriously when you can only seem to find evidence of wrongdoing when it pertains to Republicans. I smell a coverup. QED

          • JMax

            I don’t believe that either party is corrupt per se. There are corrupt individuals everywhere, from politics to religion, from science to sports, from the military to business. To me, corruption involves deliberate wrong-doing for personal gain. I haven’t seen proof of any corruption by this president nor have I seen any evidence of corruption by government agencies in the several controversies the GOP likes to gin up. I’ll qualify that last sentence by saying that it appears that some people in the VA were falsifying reports in order to enhance their performance bonuses. That is indeed corruption, and it apparently applies to a number of people. It doesn’t mean the agency itself is corrupt. It also appears to span more than one administration so it doesn’t go toward the credibility of THIS administration any more that previous ones.

            ” I smell a coverup.”

            Of what?

          • El_Tigre

            Right. and the earth is flat.

        • Walter Peck

          which they did before, without a mandate

          • D Parri

            Yep, but that’s the part the DemLibs don’t want to mention.

        • JMax

          The reason there are 20 forms of contraceptives is that each is different and each meets a specific need of the patient. If every woman was the same there would only need to be one.

          The fact of the matter, semmy, is that none of the 4 forms Hobby Lobby objected to do causes abortion. Scientists, doctors, and the manufactures all say they do not. The right keeps ignoring that part.

          • semmy

            Sorry, but have to disagree with you there. The IUD and the “morning after” pill both cause abortion according to those who believe life begins at conception. The owners of Hobby Lobby believe those four forms do and that’s what this case is about. You may not agree with that nor may some scientists, doctors or manufacturers, but we all don’t feel the same about everything, do we?

          • JMax

            “The IUD and the “morning after” pill both cause abortion according to those who believe life begins at conception.”

            And the Earth is flat according to those who believe the Earth is flat. And the Earth is 6,000 years old for those who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

            Science says that these drugs and the IUD DO NOT cause abortion.

            The National Catholic Reporter has more on this.

            http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt

            “Some church officials argue that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life.”

            Why do we never hear about the horror of this “massive loss of life”?

            The law may take into account what people believe but it should not be decided by what people believe in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

          • El_Tigre

            Typical liberal. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

          • semmy

            That’s too silly to even respond to. You’re declaring your opinion to be fact because some other people support you and it means more than the opinion of others who don’t agree with you. That’s completely intolerant, which I’m sure is word you like to throw around a lot.
            The reason there isn’t more outrage over that “massive loss of life” is that it is completely natural and out of our hands. Are you really not seeing that?

          • JMax

            “You’re
            declaring your opinion to be fact because some other people support you and it
            means more than the opinion of others who don’t agree with you.”

            No, as I’ve shown in my recently published comment, I have proved that this is not my opinion, but the scientific explanation of how these contraceptives work.

            Yeah, facts carry more weight than opinion.

            I never use the word “intolerant”.

            Tsunamis are completely natural, too, yet we mourn mass deaths resulting from them. Death is death, is it not?

      • Integrity

        Interesting spin; 77 days in lieu of almost 7 months. I am quite sure both major political parties continue to advance their causes even when the Senate is not in session. Ironically, they would not have had the 60th vote had it not been for prosecutorial misconduct. QED

  • rbblum

    The primary assault on the American people is the War on American Justice. Otherwise, just wait til the Obama-Holder-Jarrett list of pardons is formulated.

  • Barbara

    Better late than never, Bernie. Excellent points, as usual, and I think more are waking up to the left’s tactics.

  • VermontAmerican

    The only “war on women” being waged is by Democrats who insult women’s intelligence by hoping they are too stupid to see through their lies and propaganda.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      Unfortunately, I think, many women have and will buy into this. At least one woman at my office does.

      • D Parri

        Well, does your plan provide for free condoms to men?

      • VermontAmerican

        Many women DO buy into it but it’s only because they generally agree with the overall politics of the Democrat Party. Otherwise, the very notion, standing alone, that Republicans are waging a “war on women,” would illicit a good deal of snickering out of them because of its ridiculousness.

        • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

          Possibly. But, it seems that if someone can be assigned an aggrieved status, they’re more than willing to take it, because it suddenly becomes all about them. It appeals to the selfishness of human nature and that is what “progressive” ideology does in general.

  • buckrodgers

    Maybe someone can tell me what women have gained from the feminist movement which took hold in the sixties,compared to what they lost inorder to become liberated, they got the right to create a human life by shoving chemicals in their body,so men can have sex without consequences, that’s right ladies we don’t feel your pain or mental agony when you kill a fetus, they got the right to fly fighter planes and join men in the draft lines if and when a war breaks out, but what the hell, ever since Vietnam, men have gone out of their way to avoid the draft, so a lot of males won’t mind yelling hell no she can go,while they stay home and make the coffee, women also were liberated from the kitchen,so they could get up every morning in rain,sleet or snow and run down to a prison called a forty hour work week, women also earned the right to compete in the PGA, while the LPGA has to fight to keep men or their tour,actually the real war against women will be transgenders,who have an extra gene that gives them a advantage over a women that was born a female,they also gave up all the social consideration that were enjoyed by their great grandmothers,, men and women are different and all the social engineering in the world isn’t gone to change
    that no matter how much society tries to make everybody the same, most men are happy that they were born a male,they were designed to be warriors,while women are suited to be caregivers, but somewhere down the line women started to resent being born a female,they had to turn to the government to protect them from themselves and a lot of men decided that was fine with them,gender norming,sexual harassment,putting dresses on boys or having them play with dolls hasn’t changed mens roles in society,but it has angered a lot of women who were being forced into a situation that their just not capable of competing with men, both men and women have qualities that are unique to their sexes and both sexes need each other equally to keep society from being thrown into anarchy, it’s easy to find that special man or women who were born with special talents,but on the average,men and women are wired differently, you can’t fool mother nature.

    • Walter Peck

      I disagree with you in part. It did some good, especially in helping women achieve more career options. Women should be able to decide whether they want to partake in that 40 hours work week or be a housewife.

      The problem with the feminist movement is that it now mostly pursues leftist goals under the guise of helping women.

  • Phil

    The problem is, Bernie, that even though they don’t vote in the mid-terms, they do vote for president. Which means we can look forward to Hillary in two years. Hooray.

    • KStrett

      I don’t think Hillary is going to garner a high turnout. I also think is a mistake to presume she already has the nomination. The media did that in 2008, and look what happened.

      I think low information voters will either stay home or vote against the democrats because the economy still isn’t good, they are feeling the effects of Obama-care, and Obama’s foreign policy is a nightmare.

      However, if the establishment republicans win the primary and run a Jeb Bush type candidate where there is little difference between the republican and the democrat, it will be extremely close.

      • Judy

        The one big thing that Hillary has is BILL–and that’s a big deal.

        • Lc Goodfellow

          Hillary wasn’t smart enough to find out about Slick-willy tripping to the Marriott and back before sunrise.
          Slick but no CIGAR !

          • El_Tigre

            At this point in time, what difference does it make?

        • KStrett

          He can also be a big liability. Do you remember when he made the mistake of taking pictures with a couple of adult movie stars?

          It’s hard to make the war on women argument when your husband is a serial philanderer who was accused of raping a woman.

    • D Parri

      So, if Hillarious does get elected, then who will be making the decisions while they are both in the WH at the same time?

      I just have a hard time seeing Uncle Billy Bob sitting to the side while Hillarious tries to play Mrs. President. Picture is all wrong.

      • Paula

        Bill’s probably counting all the female interns he can deny having sex with!

        • D Parri

          And he’s ‘scoping them out’ now. S’pose he’s giving any interviews yet?

          • Paula

            He has other fish to fry… but he’d be hell on wheels being the First Gentleman. The proverbial fox in the hen house!

          • Paula

            Maybe she is too!

    • Lc Goodfellow

      Over heard that she has her ‘… Flying Monkeys on stand by …’
      ” You’ve been warned “

  • gold7406

    foxy loxy appeals to the least intelligent first. dim witted chicken little is convinced the sky is falling and whips the farmyard into mass hysteria.

  • alevanpa

    I heard a great simile on this issue on the radio: We all know about the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a Gay couple, which the Gay couple was willing to pay for. Well, this issue of the government demanding we pay for a woman’s desire for birth control, amounts to the Gay couple not just asking for the cake to be baked, but a demand that the baker pay for the cake, too.

    • KStrett

      Unfortunately, the decision was narrowly tailored and they were looking at the statute rather than the central constitutional question. I believe they said the government does have a compelling interest to make sure women have access to birth control, which shows how far off the constitutional reservation SCOTUS is.

      • D Parri

        However, the law does not require that the baker add any sugar to the icing.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      This is where Bernie is inconsistent. He has stated that Christian-owned businesses should put their beliefs on the shelf if they want to be in the public marketplace when discussing the gay-wedding cake case. Never mind the gross unconstitutionality of that position, it also appears to be a weird bit of inconsistency on his part.

      • El_Tigre

        I often see a sign, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

  • Concernedmimi

    Real women don’t think that Pelosi ( that nutty woman that used to be speaker of the house; (unbelievable)), Murray (is that the one who looks like a blonde buster brown?) that can’t add two and two? and Shultz (the wired-haired terrier) Florida reject, speaks for them. Real women don’t need sugar daddies or the government substituting for one. They get what they need on their own merits; not what these phony female democrats are always peddling with lies and hand-outs!!!!!

  • Tim Ned

    I’m glad to see my local newspaper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, is holding onto its consistency in bias with this SCOTUS ruling. 6 editorials against the ruling, 0 supporting it.

  • EddieD_Boston

    The war on women in a country where women have more rights than 100% of the rest of the women in the world. Will Sandra Fluke be oppressed when she’s making $300,000 a year and driving her BMW after she graduates from Georgetown Law? Sickening.

    • Tim Ned

      In the eyes of our main stream media, Yes she is a suppressed women of evil conservatives.

  • Seattle Sam

    Senator Patty Murray yesterday railed against the RFRA — which SHE VOTED FOR in 1993. Truly the Senate’s dimmest bulb.

    • gold7406

      you mean she was for it, before she was against it?
      it’s a political term where you can speak out of two orifices simultaneously, known as ambi-flatulent.

      • Walter Peck

        Two orifices, same output

        • gold7406

          excellent

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      She has a lot of competition for that title.

    • El_Tigre

      patty murray the shame of Washington State.

  • kayakbob

    The Supreme Court did not strike down abortion or contraception. They ruled that closely held, private corporations are not required to pay for 4 of the current 20(?) forms of birth control, if those 4 violate the religious convictions of the owners of that private corporation. To me this is a fairly narrow ruling.

    All the uproar from the left is because they see this ruling as a crack in the armor of Obamacare that will just get bigger. What they really fear is the effect this ruling may have on other Obamacare cases in other courts. Perhaps. I hope so.

    Clearing away all the hyperbole, this case brings up the question the left will do just about anything to keep people from asking: since when does an individual’s “right” to anything require everyone else pay for it? (acknowledgement to Seattle Sam, who asked that question earlier in these comments.)

    • Kathie Ampela

      I agree, excellent post kayakbob. I think the SCOTUS ruling was a victory for common sense which was the point of my post. The dems have been able to dumb down common sense to a shocking degree but even so you can’t keep it at bay forever, eventually reality comes crashing down on you.

      • kayakbob

        Thank you for the kind words, Kathie. I agree with your post, except for the last line about extinct Democrats. Democrats have flourished since they figured out the natural human instinct is to want something for nothing – such as Obamacare subsidies – and how easily so many people can be led from: ” I want ____”, to the monumental leap of “I want ____. So you need to pay for it”.

        • Kathie Ampela

          Politcial parties have become extinct in our history and I believe (my opinion) the Democrats’ message is so empty and toothless people will turn away in droves. I
          heard it from step father all throughout my childhood you get what you pay for and don’t get something for nothing, nothing of any value, anyway. I also think “free stuff” have consquences, big, big consquences to the ecosystem and once “the folks” see the consequences it will drive them away from the dems. Just my common sense take. I think the new paradigm will be liberal republicans and the tea party over the next decade.

          • Walter Peck

            The problem is that there are many empty heads out there to be fooled by the empty message.

        • D Parri

          It simply amazes me to see so many gullible people still buying into the line “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to give you free stuff.”

          Nothing is for free. When that wealth redistribution plan is working, the only thing that gets accomplished in the long-run is that we will all have to pay higher prices or higher taxes for the commodities that we purchase.

          The government grows, our costs grow, and what are we ultimately paying for? More government. Foolish.

      • El_Tigre

        And there will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

  • Kathie Ampela

    This ruling by SCOTUS only excludes 4 of the most dangerous forms of birth control, the pill that induces abortion yet we are supposed to believe this is the ONE thing that will turn out women to vote for Democrats. Islamic caliphate in Iraq, intentional border sabotage, Obamacare, high unemployment, too many problems to list and the only thing women care about is an abortion inducing pill? The DEMOCRATS will be extinct in 5 years.

  • SkyCitizen

    What a great idea; let the taxpayer pay for something that will prevent or end the conception of a natural citizen but invite children from another country to become citizens. Does Obama hate America? No more than Nazis making Jews by their own rail tickets.

    • Brian Stover

      Obama DOES hate America.
      Please don’t act surprised.
      Actions always reveal more than words.

      • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

        Nooooo!!!! This is merely… fundamental transformation! LOL

        I do believe he wanted to weaken America’s power and presence in the world. Does he truly hate the country? I don’t know, but I think he hates many aspects of it or believes the country is flawed in many ways. I don’t know if that amounts to hatred, but it may not matter, either. Our nation’s being run into the ground and because of all this radicalized secularism, I see a potential political/geographic split in the country within decades, if not years. I’m not crazy about some of the nonsense in southern states, but if I had to choose between the The Union of Progressive American States and a scaled-down United States consisting of “flyover” country, I’ll take the latter.

        • El_Tigre

          That is because he didn’t grow up in the US, he grew up in Indonesia and his father was from Kenya. He was raised on the third world opinion of the US.

  • Brian Stover

    I’m all for contraception. Buy your own.
    I’m all for feeding a family good food. Buy your own.
    I’m all for electric cars. Buy your own.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

      Sandra Fluke talked about wanting to be responsible for her own healthcare choices, soooo… how is it that WE are required to pay for HER “responsibility”??

  • Seattle Sam

    This decision only came up because of government’s insane decision to create tax incentives for buying your healthcare through your employer.

    • Patrick H.

      That was during World War II if I remember correctly when wages were frozen and employers were forbidden from giving any raises. Honestly, if we eliminated the tax incentive, we would probably solve a lot of the problems with our health care system. You always hear people complain about tax loopholes except for this one.

      • Seattle Sam

        The tax code is the ONLY reason an employer would want to be anywhere near the healthcare business. He can offer something that is worth a dollar to the employee for 40-75 cents (depending on the various corporate and personal tax rates that apply).

  • Tim Ned

    ISIS, economy, unemployment, deficit, debt, nuclear Iran, mid-east, N. Korea, etc., etc., “Let’s get contraceptives paid for”. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

  • Seattle Sam

    Women’s rights? Since when is it a “right” to require someone else to pay for the contraceptives you purchase?