For all of you who seem to think that the Hobby Lobby decision is just "hair on fire"

[Sheldon Cooper]

and "unhinged" theatrics, I invite you to review Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You'll see how every decision has consequences, resulting in the rights of women as actual, autonomous people continuing to be chipped away until they're practically non-existent. We're on a slow but steady death spiral, and your minimizing of the ramifications of this decision are uninformed at best and malevolent at worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

[n2doc]

1. Frankly, anyone who thinks the HL decision is nothing to get upset about

Is a fellow traveler of the Dominionists and the Fascists. And they should go the F away and stick to watching Fox.

[redqueen]

3. +1

[valerief]

6. +1+1

[Bluenorthwest]

12. + 1 again

nt

[Enthusiast]

16. +1!

[Starry Messenger]

18. Yes.

[Ilsa]

23. +1 They don't belong on DU, IMO. nt

[truebrit71]

24. Yup..

[MondoGrunark]

48. Plutocracy

The Nation article nailed it. Investigative journalism is on life support, pushed out by infotainment from the corporate media (consistently pushed as the 'liberal media'). Political parties bought and sold by big donors. Public education constantly under attack. Religious belief replacing rational thought. What I keep seeing as more probable is the fragmentation of the U.S., with almost feudal corporate overlords.....

[MadrasT]

28. +1

[Greybnk48]

34. +1000! n/t

[bullwinkle428]

35. +2.

[Rex]

38. Agree.

I can't believe there are DUers doing damage control for the SCOTUS...oh wait, yeah I can.

[nomorenomore08]

69. Too afraid to challenge the status quo? Or what?

Or maybe they simply don't give a shit about anything that doesn't directly affect them. Because that would be a distraction from their oh-so-important pet issues, right?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

44. + one zillion mega plusses. Glad I haven't run across any of the

Scrotum-headed DUers defending SCROTUS.... yet.

I will bite their faces off.

[tenderfoot]

49. YES!

[William769]

51. +1.

[calimary]

54. Totally. These people are fanatics. They can - no, they SHOULD be expected to work ANY

loophole, no matter how small, and eat away at it til it's bigger, and no longer even a mere crack - but rather, a yawning CHASM.

Figure it this way: What would any rats or termites do? They find one little teeny hole or crack or way in, and they take it. And then they start gnawing away til the crack is dramatically bigger and far more gaping, and the whole tribe can come flooding in and pretty soon your whole house is compromised and falling apart. That's what these assholes WILL try to do here. Because the lovely SCOTUS has just given them a little crack. You bet your ass they're gonna exploit this and try to build on it as much as they can. That's what they've already done, rather thoroughly, with Roe v Wade.

Um... wouldn't WE be trying to do the same thing?

BTW - that attitude - "meh, just a bunch of people with hair on fire. Not gonna happen. S'not gonna happen." Yeah, MY ASS. THAT attitude has gotten us to this point, where OUR Pro-Choice house is compromised and now falling apart. Our side thought it was much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot, meh - what can they do? Buncha nut cases, don't even waste your time, they're not gonna get very far..." HAH! Yeah? Seriously? You think it's no big deal and that it's not gonna gain strength and momentum and come and not only bite you in the ass but chew your ass and your legs off? You think there's nothing much here to worry about? Well, I think you need your head examined - before they chew THAT off, too.

[wandy]

55. Adding one more +1

[theHandpuppet]

57. +1000

[TBF]

58. There was an apologist yesterday on this site who

was stressing that this "only" affected 4 types of birth control.

Fuck that.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5171812

I noticed that condoms and viagra are A-OK.

[kcr]

59. Agreed n/t

[Skittles]

72. I have to agree with this assessment

yes INDEED

[Raksha]

75. Exactly! +1000

[Ilsa]

26. A number of OPs have tried to convince

DUers that the damage from this ruling is minimal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5176468

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5173199

[MH1]

31. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172784

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025173199

for two examples.

[MohRokTah]

4. Basically, the court ruled that corporations are people with religious rights...

and women are not.

[Moostache]

11. Worse than that, if these freaks get their way entirely...

Women will be treated as brood mares for the state if these conservative bastards get their way...forced pregnancies and trials and convictions for miscarriages too. The ignorance of just how many pregnancies actually end in spontaneous abortions by the body in the first place is stunning, but these freaking rubes and their selective interpretation of their idiotic religions are a clear and present danger to the United States.

Its beyond disgusting to me that Republicans can get away with appealing to such a narrow constituency (specifically older white males) and STILL win elections in this country. I cannot fathom the kind of self-loathing and lack of self-worth it would take for a woman, a Hispanic, and African-American or any other non-white male to actually vote for these sons-of-bitches. They should be getting creamed in EVERY national election and it should be by widening margins each time.

I stated in another thread that I am rooting for arterial plaque and a natural causes death for Scalia or Thomas and I mean it...I want to see one of them cold and stiff by natural events (looking at Anton and Clarence I don't think anyone would be surprised by a massive coronary event for either one - preferably both) as soon as possible to prevent this hyper-politicized court from going any further down the path they are on already.

Corporations can be "people" the day that we can arrest their CEO and board of directors and bring murder charges against them and then summarily execute the lot for their crimes against humanity. The other thing that corporations have to sacrifice in order to gain personhood is their mission statement of maximizing shareholder wealth. FUCK THE SHAREHOLDERS....PEOPLE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO OTHER PEOPLE DAMMIT - NOT PROFITS!!!

This political and lawful worship of profits is disgusting and centuries from now, when people study the demise of the United States into much smaller regional governments like Europe, the reason for the disintegration of the union will be laid squarely at their feet. The truly sad thing is that's exactly what they want anyway...

[hue]

20. Re Your "arterial plaque" hope: Most very rich have prophylactic cardiac cath interventions so no MI

Many physicians are also doing this.

[Moostache]

27. Weakening of the arterial walls then? Maybe a case of Ebola?

I know its bad form to be actively wishing woes on another human being, but those two barely qualify as members of the species in my eyes. I really do find Scalia the most unpleasant public figure of our day, Thomas less so, but still an evil presence on the court.

[saidsimplesimon]

25. Well said Moostache, thank you. Then there is

Blackwater, now known as Z or did they flip their hats yet again? Mercenaries, without loyalty, protecting our embassies, hah, these scum are for sale to the highest bidder. Our roads and bridges are in ruins. Our water sources privatized while chemical pollution of aquifers (underground) water continues without regulatory action.

[smirkymonkey]

65. +1000

[Lars39]

68. I'm hoping they all get enlarged prostates w monthly rotor rootings.

[RoccoR5955]

29. And I will believe that corporations are people

When Florida, Texas, Georgia and a few others execute a few of them.

[etherealtruth]

62. That is so absurd ... and would be funny

... if it weren't completely true

[el_bryanto]

5. I think there's a certain amount of purposeful confusion in how the decision was written

Perhaps reflecting divisions among the 5 who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby? They seem to have wanted to give Hobby Lobby the result they wanted, without setting too much of a precedent for future cases involving the "religious rights" of corporations.

I can't help but imagine, though, that there are members of this court that would prefer this lawsuit not be an issue (because the ACA is unconstitutional (in their beliefs and therefore shouldn't be able to force any company to provide any healthcare). There are also some members of this court who probably feel like birth control should be more difficult, if not impossible to get, and would uphold state bans on birth control.

That said, purposeful confusion - which means it plays out for the next few days as people try and understand exactly what the decision mandates and doesn't mandate.

Bryant

[ewagner]

8. "Purposeful confusion"...hmmmm

you may be right....

But

being the cynical person I am, I'll have to make this point:

You mention that "hey seem to have wanted to give Hobby Lobby the result they wanted, without setting too much of a precedent for future cases involving the "religious rights" of corporations. "

This implies that the five judges of the majority (and conservative block) of the court actually CARE about setting a precedent for future cases...I don't know if they CARE about the law, precedent, or for that matter the future of the country...they care only about protecting the conservative/republican/libertarian/tea-party campaign donations for the next election....they cannot see beyond that. The confusion was (in my opinion) deliberate. Deliberately setting the stage for future law suits that they can use this ruling as a springboard to jump off of to pander to the christian(ist) right wing in the future.

but you could be right....but only if they were trying to protect their reputations in the eyes of future justices.

[el_bryanto]

9. That last line is where I come down.

And not all of them - I don't think Scalia cares for example - but possibly Roberts does.

Scalia's decision just reads as petulant. I read it yesterday, looking for something people had claimed was in there (and it was) but almost every 3rd paragraph starts with a slam on Ginsburgs dissent.

Bryant

[7962]

32. I agree. The decision doesnt apply to 90+% of corporations.

Only "closely held", which generally means family owned or a small group. But if they are a publicly traded company like a GM it doesnt count

[Blue_In_AK]

42. I think I heard it reported on the news last night,

that 50% of the work force is employed by these "closely held" corporations.

[etherealtruth]

63. Here's how the IRS defines "closely held corporation" (you got it right)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/

Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and Is not a personal service corporation.

Basically, "closely held" is a term that covers as much as 90 percent (or more) of all businesses, according to a 2000 study. But while it covers the vast majority of employers, it doesn't necessarily cover the vast majority of employees. That's because publicly traded companies tend to have many more employees than private ones.

Still, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University, closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce and accounted for slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- of economic output from the private sector.

[mcar]

43. Ummm

92% of this nation's companies are closely held. They employ more than 50% of our workers.

[7962]

45. But they would still have to have a valid religious issue. Right?

I doubt wal mart could all of a sudden start saying things didnt agree with their religion when they never professed any before. But maybe not
granted, small businesses employ most people. But HB isnt small, and I would have a lot harder time telling someone running a business that employs 15 people what they have to cover.

[mcar]

50. HL didn't have a "valid" religious issue

They, through the health insurance providers they used covered BC. They never complained about it until the ACA passed. Then suddenly they got religon.

Other companies can be suddenly saved as well. Why not?

[valerief]

7. Soldiers should be reminded that these kinds of decisions are what they're risking

life and limb over--making women second class citizens. No free apple pie.

[niyad]

10. I missed everything yesterday. there were people on this board who really don't get

what this decision mean? why am I not surprised? I mean, after all, it's only about those non-humans, women, after all.

[heaven05]

13. you are right

but given we're immediate gratification oriented, no long term effects are part of most analysis by a lot of people. i think.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. I tell them my hair's on fire so I'll have something to hold their feet to. Then I ask them to state

their position on reproductive freedom for women. That shuts them up. They run away afraid to say what they really mean. Try it, you'll like it.

[Scarsdale]

15. Religion

Surely the owners of Hobby Lobby are aware that the majority, if not all, of their products are made in China? So, they are perfectly fine doing business with a country where women are more like things than people, where abortion is necessary to abide by the "one child rule"? Where are their Christian ethical beliefs about that little fact? The Supreme Court should be renamed The Mediocre Court. Once they handed the WH to Dubya, the gig was up. They do not make decision for the majority of voters, just the richest ones.

[toby jo]

40. This China point has been brought up several times, it's a good one.

Maybe they should source their stuff from middle eastern countries where woman are treated like the breeders their men insist they are. No woman's rights or abortions there, for sure.

[Kablooie]

17. Hair on fire can be very serious.

Michael Jackson could have attested to this.

[Raine1967]

19. In 2005, PBS aired the last Abortion Clinic.

here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

What happened yesterday was atrocious.

[hue]

21. K&R!! Soo true!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Wanna hear scary? Ken Lay used to start every board meeting at Enron with a prayer for profits.

[smirkymonkey]

66. Ugh!

You're kidding, no? That is disgusting.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. It's what happens when you really believe the rich are blessed.

[davidpdx]

73. Oh crap, that brings up a story I should tell

A few years ago I got a very last minute offer (like the week before classes started) at a university here in Korea. I was aware the university was Christian, but never informed about their policies before I signed a contract. Sometime later, maybe the first week of school we were told we HAD to start each class with a prayer. Now I'm not big on religion and that made me feel uncomfortable. I decided to instead do a moment of silence where I just stood there for 30-45 seconds. This same school made freshman go to service EVERY WEEK and they were only allowed to miss like 2 the whole term.

Needless to say, I only made it through a year.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. Some Christians sound like they're casting a spell when they pray.

[RoccoR5955]

30. Unhinged, my posterior!

This has NOTHING to do with religious rights. If Hobby Lobby was so damn religious, than they would not be buying goods from China, a country that mandates abortion. They wouldn't invest in companies that make Plan B, IUDs, and other contraceptives.
This is about corporations taking away women's rights, and not being able to do it through the legislative channel, so members of the Supremes Court are paid off to do it.

[Ineeda]

33. In addition...

don't think for one second that the "solution" to yesterday's abomination will be some sort of 'government' option to fill in the insurance coverage gaps the SCOTUS ruling created. This had been speculated about all day, (including the overly optimistic "creating a step closer to single-payer&quot . Doesn't anyone remember the kerfuffle, and resulting administration compromises, in the ACA? The only way to get it passed was to strip out any possibility of abortion coverage, despite such prohibition already mandated by the Hyde Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment The decision yesterday was supposedly based on the non-scientific misinformation that the now-banned birth control are abortifacients. Of course, we know that's bullshit. It's really about hating and controlling women. So anyway, here's my prediction: Any attempt to enable 'government' solutions, including single-payer will run into, not a stone wall, but the buzz saw of the current Congress and/or SCOTUS.

We women are on our own, I think. So it's time to re-learn about herbs and potions, as in ancient times. Paganism and Wicca are (I believe) recognised religions, so using such substances should pass muster, at least for now. I'm Googling and printing out whatever info I can find -- just in case it 'disappears'. I have daughters and granddaughters and I've read The Handmaid's Tale.

[Initech]

36. It's a colossal fuck up on multiple levels.

And I truly cannot say this enough: Fuck you Hobby Lobby.

[AndyTiedye]

37. The Decision Equates Birth Control With Abortion

So now when one of those "fetus personhood" laws makes it to the Supreme Court, they will issue a ruling that bans abortion AND birth control, nationwide.

Our nation's highest court has been taken over by Opus Dei, and now they are going to have their way.

[n2doc]

39. this was a good riposte

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025177885

Yet somehow, pointing out that the common thread in these cases is that women lose out is to be susceptible to claims that you are simply being emotional, that you don't get "the law." It's a pretty neat rhetorical place the conservatives on the Court have backed us into, because whenever you point out that the aggregate force of their opinions is to screw over women in this country as a general population, they can answer with an indulgent smile. "That's not what I wrote," you can imagine them saying, over and over again. They didn't really mean to wage any kind of "war on women." The law, as they see it, simply required it.

[DonCoquixote]

41. I concur

Anyone who thinks there there are not a thousand legal departments trying to figure out how to turn this into a feast of carnage is naive. We go by precedent, and the name of the legal game is to take a slice of precedent and make it into a loaf of power.

Let's avoid even the idea that some places will suddenly use religion to cut benefits. The damage is that now, religion has a FULL PLACE in legal decisions, which means it can and will use it's leverage to get it's way. The court has ruled that restricting the ability to OPPRESS is the same as OPRESSING, which is the same as saying that obstructing the fox from his rights to kill every chicken in the henhouse would be to obstruct his religion.

Side Note:I can already see the Mormons using this to say "we do not condone smoking, drinking or caffiene use, so we will cut off all people who use those."

[saidsimplesimon]

46. I think Jim Parsons is a gifted actor. I do not think

his character "Sheldon" should be elevated beyond the dreams of the comedy writer's nirvana. This is a reality based community, si?

[kcr]

60. So, you're name is really Simple Simon, is it?

That's unfortunate. Your parents were mean.

[DrewFlorida]

47. +1 It's hard to imagine how anyone from the left could think of this as no big deal!

[nomorenomore08]

70. Pure self-centeredness is all I can think of, really.

Or, for all I know, maybe they do have some unresolved "issues" with the female gender.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. Like this guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025177874

He really thinks ( I believes it's a male) thinks it just hair on fire.

Why do they get to do that but if I say the NSA stuff is hair on fire it's an freaking pile on?

[BlindTiresias]

53. Here is what will happen:

Business entities and other organizations that fit the criteria of "closely held corporations" will smell blood and act on what they perceive to be precedent. These will get pushed up to the higher courts and we will see a broadening of this ruling as the right wing justices "carefully and impartially" consider the consequences of their own ruling and decide in the business interest's favor.

[Marrah_G]

56. Thank you Sheldon

[glinda]

61. correction "FAST not slow" Kick!

[Cha]

64. Thank you, Sheldon!

[smirkymonkey]

67. Thank you Sheldon!