General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFemale Justices issue searing dissent over new contraceptive case
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sotomayor-blistering-dissent-contraception-caseFemale Justices issue searing dissent over new contraceptive case
07/03/14 06:20 PMUpdated 07/03/14 06:48 PM
facebook twitter 10 save share group 103
By Irin Carmon
The fierce disagreements dividing the Supreme Court over this weeks Hobby Lobby decision were laid bare Thursday in a searing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the Justices decision in a separate contraceptive case undermines confidence in this institution. The dissent was signed by all three female Justices.
Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word, wrote Sotomayor. Not so today.
The dissent was in an order to grant an emergency request from Wheaton College, an evangelical college in Illinois. At issue is the accommodation the Obama administration worked out for religiously-identified non-profits: Sign a form certifying your objection, and the insurer will provide the coverage directly, without the objecting organization having to pay. As of now, 122 non-profits have sued, claiming that signing the opt-out form for someone to get contraception violates their religious liberty. (An attorney for the plaintiffs has repeatedly referred to it as a permission slip for abortion, even though it does not actually cover abortion.)
In fact, that accommodation was one of the reasons Justice Samuel Alito cited to justify his Hobby Lobby decision words Sotomayor threw back at him in the dissent. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government has to show it has pursued the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal. Alito claimed that because the nonprofit accommodation exists, that means the government has other ways to get women access to contraception that respects religious liberty. Yet only a few days later, he ruled that the nonprofit accommodation again, signing a form is also a violation of religious liberty.
What the plaintiffs in the nonprofit cases are seeking is to be treated like churches no contraception for anyone. But the majority claims that nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicants employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives, because the government already knows about their objection from the lawsuit and can tell the insurer itself. But without the form, Sotomayor argues, how could the administration ever identify the organizations eligible for the accommodation and perform the administrative tasks necessary to make the accommodation work?
The dissent was co-signed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan, but not Justice Stephen Breyer, who also dissented with them in Hobby Lobby.
elleng
(131,290 posts)I wonder what, if any, effect this will have on their relationships. So far they've been quite collegial, from what I can tell. I look forward to seeing Linda Greenhouse's next column.
Sotomayor said: The courts action, she added, even undermines confidence in this institution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)With all due respect to Justice Sotomayor, there's little confidence left to undermine!
Samantha
(9,314 posts)"It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today' s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year' s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation' s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore
http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/dissent.htm
Sam
tavernier
(12,410 posts)I'd forgotten this.
calimary
(81,561 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)There is none left on my part. None whatsoever.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)This is a crisis for SCOTUS, pure and simple. The more sober members of the court better get smarter about this thing. It's not good for the populace to lack confidence in the public justice system...
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)This decision also shows you what the male justices think of the women sitting at the court -- they respect them just about as much as they respect any woman, i.e., not at all.
sheshe2
(83,996 posts)Horse with no Name
(33,958 posts)I hope to see direct results of this, ie Hobby Lobby stores closing down due to boycotts. If I don't, I will be surprised.
Fla Dem
(23,840 posts)gets as riled up as more involved activist. Your basic middle class mom who goes to HL for stuff for her kids school project, is just not going to go out of her way to avoid HL if it's the most convenient store for her. Now a great post Wednesday or Thursday from "Turn CO Blue" uses HL a lot in her profession, is boycotting them. If more of the professional customers would boycott, then it might have an impact.
Turn CO Blue's post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5187206
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)HL still covers 16 forms of contraception, right? Nothing to see here, wimmins, move along. Just in one week this whole damn thing is unraveling. Thanks fundagelicals!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Did I miss any?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I don't want to pay for your fun times!
Cha
(297,934 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Oh yeah. It's Women's time now. Bring it.
Uncle Joe
(58,505 posts)Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The decision should be revisited for that reason.
Good for them to put in on record.
littlemissmartypants
(22,850 posts)burrowowl
(17,654 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)his orders from...Gawd?!?!)
Hekate
(90,962 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Servicemembers applying for conscientious objector status must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the nature of their claim meets the DoD criteria for conscientious objection, and that their beliefs are honest, sincere, and deeply held. Servicemember-applicants may seek either separation from the armed forces (as Class 1-O objectors) or assignment to non-combatant duties (as Class 1-A-O objectors). They must submit, as part of their written application, a description of the nature of their belief that requires them to seek separation or assignment to non-combatant duties.
In light of the volunteer nature of contemporary military service in the United States, servicemembers must explain when and why their beliefs became incompatible with military service. They must describe in as much detail as possible how their beliefs changed or developed, including the factors that caused the change in or development of their beliefs. Moreover, applicants must explain how their daily lifestyle changed as a result of their beliefs. Furthermore, they must explain any circumstances in which they would believe in the use of force. As the final requirement in describing their training and beliefs, applicants must explain what facts or circumstances most conspicuously demonstrate the consistency and depth of the beliefs that prompted their application.
Applicants must demonstrate that their beliefs upon which their conscientious objection is based are the primary controlling force in their lives. They must produce evidence in their written application (and during their subsequent hearing before an officer) demonstrating that neither the avoidance of military service nor expediency is the motivating factor in their claim. To this end, DoD Directive 1300.6 lists numerous factors to consider in examining the merits of a servicemembers application, such as his or her training in the home and church, participation in religious activities, and general demeanor and pattern of conduct.
. . . .
Interviews by Chaplain and Psychiatrist
ETC.
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/conscienciousobjectors.html
And Wheaton College doesn't want to fill out a simple form?
Is it really so much to ask? Is the conscientious objector acknowledging the government's right to wage war by competing the process to establish that he/she is a conscientious objector?
Wheaton College is being unreasonable. It does not have the right to prevent others from using birth control, and that is what it is trying to do.
Some religions, Unitarians for instance, believe that a church policy that encourages responsible marriage and parenting also encourages family planning.
I am blocking out the date because it has passed.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Religious Institute
Unitarian Universalist Association
Invite you to a FAITH RALLY Supporting Family Planning and Religious Freedom
. . . .
Before oral arguments in the historic Supreme Court case regarding the Affordable Care
Acts contraceptive coverage rule, join us to raise a faithful voice in support of equitable
access to affordable birth control. All women must be able to make healthcare decisions
according to their own beliefs and conscience, free from coercion by their boss religious
liberty exists to protect the free exercise rights of individuals, not corporations.
Following the faith rally, we will join in a processional to the Court.
http://www.uuplan.com/event/faith-rally-supporting-family-planning-religious-freedom/
Methodists agree:
. . . .
The United Methodist Social Principles illustrate a prayerful and thoughtful commitment to addressing important socie tal issues. The following paragraph from The Social Principles expresses the Churchs support for family planning by urging that individuals consider the impact on the total world community and its resources with regards to childbearing.
. . . .
Population
Since the growing worldwide population is increasingly straining the worlds supply of
food, minerals, and water and sharpening international tensions, the reduction of the rate of consumption of resources by the affluent and the reduction of current world population growth rates have become imperative. People have the duty to consider the impact on the total world community of their decisions regarding childbearing and should have access to information and appropriate means to limit their fertility, including voluntary sterilization. We affirm that programs to achieve a stabilized population should be placed in a context of total economic and social development, including an equitable use and control of resources; improvement in the status of women in all cultures; a human level of economic security, health care, and literacy for all. We oppose any policy of forced abortion or forced sterilization.
Healthy Families, Healthy Planet Project
The Healthy Families, Healthy Planet initiative, funded by a grant from the United Nations
Foundation, works to educate and mobilize United Methodists in the U.S. on the
importance of maternal health and international family planning. Through grassroots
education with targeted annual conferences and advocacy efforts with policy makers, the
goal of the project is to achieve higher levels of foreign aid for international family
planning through the U.S. government. Healthy Families, Healthy Planet is a program
initiative of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
For more information check out our website at www.umchealthyfamilies.org
Many churches agree that birth control use should be encouraged. It is the responsible thin to do.
Six of the nine members of the Supreme Court are either Catholic or were raised Catholic. That does not come near representing the distribution of religious affiliations of the American people shown by Pew Research.
According to Pew Research, over 51% of the US population identifies itself as Protestant.
Only 23.9% is Catholic. Many Catholics support the use of birth control while some Protestants disapprove of it.
But the Catholics we have on the Supreme Court are imposing the beliefs of their sect on employees based on the employers' convictions.
Someone is bound to accuse me of being bigoted, but it's the 5 conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court who are narrow-minded, culturally intolerant, and bigoted and expressing their narrow-mindedness, their intolerance and their bigotry by making it difficult for women in faiths that believe in birth control and family planning to follow their religious beliefs, to exercise their religious freedom if their employer's beliefs disapprove of family planning or birth control or abortion.
An employer's religious scruples should not justify excusing it from providing full health care coverage to its female employees. Neither the employer nor the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court are qualified to second guess a woman's doctor on the issue of family planning and reproductive health.
I respect everyone's right to religious freedom, but my employer whether it be a private company owned by a family or a religious instution should respect the privacy of my relationship with my spouse and with my doctor and allow me to make personal decisions for myself about family planning and reproductive health.
We have too many people of one religion on the Supreme Court. And it happens to be a very backward form of Catholicism. If the justices are such ardent supporters of freedom of religion, then one or two of them should resign so that Justices who will support freedom of religion for mainstream Protestants can be represented on the Court. Freedom of religion is not just for Catholics. It is for all of us.
I would not say this, but it appears that their religion has overtaken the common sense of the Catholic 5 on the Court.
This Wheaton decision is the last straw. A conscientious objector must do far more than fill out a form to establish the sincerity of his faith. Wheaton College can at least fill out a form and turn it in. How lazy can you get?
Religious belief my eye. It's just an excuse to impose one's religion on others. Filling out a form is not that much to ask.
BrainMann1
(460 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)right up the gang of five's ass!
These women represent the court as it should be. Thank you Justice Sotomayor, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan.