Democrats unveil bill to reverse Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling
Source: CBS News
Accusing the Supreme Court of turning a religious freedom law on its head and dragging down women's rights, a group of Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that would reverse the court's recent ruling on health insurance coverage for birth control.
"We are peddling back with this court as fast as they can take us to the 19th Century," Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said. "We don't want to go."
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that closely-held companies like Hobby Lobby don't have to follow the Obamacare mandate requiring large firms to help pay for their employees' birth control. Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., consequently introduced a bill that specifically bans for-profit employers from refusing to provide health coverage -- including contraceptive coverage -- guaranteed to their employees under federal law.
(snip)
The law introduced Wednesday would not amend the RFRA, but it clarifies that it doesn't allow for-profit companies to opt out of the Obamacare contraception coverage rule. The bill would also nullify court challenges against the Obama administration's compromise rule for nonprofits that object to the contraception coverage. The law would still allow exemption for houses of worship.
more at link
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-unveil-bill-to-reverse-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-ruling/
Dems: Supreme Court Turned Religious Freedom Law 'On Its Head'
(snip)
As a reaction to that ruling, Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced the Protect Womens Health from Corporate Interference Act, a bill that would override the Supreme Court's decision and prevent for-profit employers from using RFRA to opt out of federal laws. The bill would prevent companies like Hobby Lobby from refusing to cover any of the 20 forms of contraception that the Affordable Care Act requires them to include in their health insurance plans.
Boxer said the bill would make it clear that the Supreme Court can't use RFRA "to deny women equal health care, or frankly to deny anyone the right to choose their health care."
The bill is expected to move to the Senate floor for a vote as early as next week, but is not likely to be taken up in the GOP-controlled House. While the bill currently has no Republican co-sponsors, Democrats said they are talking to their colleagues across the aisle about the bill and are optimistic about its chances.
(snip)
Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Diana Degette (D-Colo.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) will introduce the companion bill in the House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/dems-supreme-court-misapp_n_5570836.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/hobby-lobby-override_n_5568320.html
This bill will ensure that employee access to critical health services is not at the mercy of their bosses religious beliefs, the lawmakers said in a statement. Congress never intended to allow corporate employers to block employee access to critical preventive services like birth control."
Dems Roll Out Bill To Overturn Hobby Lobby: Women 'Tired Of Being Targeted'
(snip)
The "Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act," written by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would force for-profit businesses to cover birth control and other preventive services required under Obamacare even if their owners object. It had 35 cosponsors upon introduction all Democrats.
"At a time when 99 percent of sexually active women in the U.S. have used birth control, five justices decided last week that a CEO's personal views can interfere with a woman's access to this preventive service," Murray told a room full of reporters. "They're tired of being targeted and are looking to Congress to right this wrong by the Supreme Court."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/democrats-roll-out-bill-overturn-hobby-lobby?utm_content=bufferbdfcf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
samsingh
(17,594 posts)perdita9
(1,144 posts)With votes recorded, it will let women know who their friends are and, more importantly, who opposes them receiving healthcare.
avebury
(10,952 posts)will never get it through the house.
IronLionZion
(45,411 posts)because checks and balances
What we need are more liberals on the supreme court and congress and everywhere else.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)Congress is fully within its rights to change that statute (which is what this bill proposes). And unless it conflicts with a constitutional provision, SCOTUS can't do a damn thing about it.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)They didn't say that it didn't conflict with 1A... just that they didn't need to reach to the Constitutional question. We could easily see it return with the same end result. There certainly seem to be at least four who were ready to say that 1A trumped the requirement even without RFRA.
Congress is fully within its rights to change that statute
Congress is (with presidential agreement)... but the Senate alone is not the congress.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)But I think it is fair to say that there is more reluctance to make a ruling based on the constitution than a statute.
My response about Congress was in response to the claim that separation of powers prevents Congress from changing the statute. In fact, separation of powers prevents the SCOTUS from preventing Congress from doing just that. And fair point about the President, although a veto can be overridden. Ultimately, Congress can pass whatever statutes it wants as long as enough members agree (despite what the President or SCOTUS want, with the exception that the statute cannot be unconstitutional).
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)and prevent them from hearing any challenges based on whatever criteria they want. This is fully within their constitutional power. Supreme Court is only guaranteed jurisdiction in "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". Its appellate jurisdiction is subject to any limits Congress decides to impose. Even its jurisdiction over Constitutional questions can be limited.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)The purpose is to drum up awareness so that Democrats get. out. the. fucking. vote in November.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then pummel them with it come election time.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)fetish to actually DO IT
I'm doubtful...
kag
(4,079 posts)I don't live in her district, but she's one of the best (and most experienced) Reps from Colorado.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)I hold little hope for success. This would need Teapublican support. Right. One more way to obstruct will be all they view it as.
To make matters worse it would be against the interests of a corporate person. The interests of a corporate person following their sincere two year old beliefs acting in the name of their god no less.
Still this bill should continue to be introduced, at least 43 times or however many times the bill to repeal the ACA has been introduced. Special hearings should be held and special comities formed, we need just follow the Benghazi game plan.
Keep this in front and do not allow it to be forgotten.
If it does nothing but pick up enough seats to allow the right thing to be done.
calimary
(81,194 posts)What would happen if some of ours introduced a National Peach Pit Month resolution or some other thing - maybe some dumb, toothless, seemingly harmless ronald reagan or george herbert walker bush appreciation bill of some sort (from the "What Could POSSIBLY Go Wrong?" department). I'm sure the teabaggers would love that and probably would go for it. We may have to stage a little trickery to go with it. BUT: hidden in there, maybe with a single phrase buried down in the muck somewhere, or maybe some complicated wording that makes the average staffer or idiot-teabagger's eyes glaze over, that BOOM! Undoes it all! BOOM! DONE! Before anybody realizes what happened.
And nobody would realize what happened until after it was signed into law, and then if somebody woke up on the other side and realized what had happened, they'd fight it of course. But we'd have the ultimate shut-down mechanism. It wouldn't get through the Senate. And even if worse came to worst in November and we lost the Senate, we still have President Obama in the White House, and he could veto any change in the law that was pushed onto his desk.
Some sort of distraction or wild goose chase or "HEY! Watch the birdie!" tactic - so they don't realize what's up - until it's too late.
Just kickin' some ideas around... that's all...
But that's how I would try to do it if I were in DC. A Trojan Horse thingie. Can't get it through the front door? Look for a back entrance. Or an open window. Or a loose grating at the basement level. Or something.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Keep in mind that the rank and file Tepublicans you see dragging their knuckles at things like OAS, are just that. The befuddled masses. The GOP has at their disposal the same intelligence power that makes our Corporate State "great".
I doubt they give the gonzo Gohmerts and misguided Cruz missiles a whole lot of actual authority. Their job is to sing the words written for them in a way the 'base' will dance to the music of the strategy.
'Good' business men like the Kochs and the Romneys call the tune and you had best bet they have top people masking sure their representatives don't do anything unproductive.
Still if they get caught out in a stealth move let me be the first to buy you a tall frosty.
After I'm done laughing my butt of that is.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)eallen
(2,953 posts)Signed into law in the 1990s.
Change the law, and the ruling fades away.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)24601
(3,959 posts)solid Democratic majorities.
Thanks Bill & Hill. Can't wait for your next big idea.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)dickthegrouch
(3,172 posts)Peddling is selling
Pedalling is what one does on a bicycle, or when talking about going backwards.