Ginsburg Dissent

[add]

Birth control is not medication is a option!
One could also argue that this "birth control" is being used for recreation.
Why is this decision considered a war on woman only, doesn't it take both sexes to tango?
Men are just as much effected.

[CrossCuT]

One could also argue that this "birth control" is being used for recreation.

 

I cant even....the level of sexism in this sentence alone is unbearable. I find it incredibly unfortunate that people dont understand the gravity of this statement to the point where youd risk uttering it in a public place. 

 

I apologize if I am being rude  but I cant explain it to you because I dont think youd care and I would get upset in the attempt. Maybe someone else can. 

[Luigi]

I cant even....the level of sexism in this sentence alone is unbearable. I find it incredibly unfortunate that people dont understand the gravity of this statement to the point where youd risk uttering it in a public place. 

 

I apologize if I am being rude  but I cant explain it to you because I dont think youd care and I would get upset in the attempt. Maybe someone else can. 

 

I don't think this was intended as sexist. I think it puts the blame squarely on men as well. They want to play this sport without getting hurt, so they use the protective gear - or require-insist that their partner does. It's the same as football.

[add]

I cant even....the level of sexism in this sentence alone is unbearable. I find it incredibly unfortunate that people dont understand the gravity of this statement to the point where youd risk uttering it in a public place. 

 

I apologize if I am being rude  but I cant explain it to you because I dont think youd care and I would get upset in the attempt. Maybe someone else can. 

 

You've never heard of casual sex

[Norseman82]

Birth control is not medication is a option!
One could also argue that this "birth control" is being used for recreation.
Why is this decision considered a war on woman only, doesn't it take both sexes to tango?
Men are just as much effected.

 

We need to frame our response along the lines of "If you want to be promiscuous, do it on your own dime".
 

[dairygirl4u2c]

the main problem is that the dissent is trying to recognize a legislatively created 'right' that never much existed until they said it did. the 'right' to birth control. in no way should this legistlively created 'right' trump estalished constitutionally fundamental rights, to religion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there is surely something to be said about the dissent and obama adminsitration's points. in that, not requiring birth ocntrol to be allowed, would cause an increase in pregnancies, diseases, and even abortions. the problem though, is that his is ultimately just a part of life. it shoudln't force people to violate their own established traditional religous beliefs.

[add]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=empZxxB19nU

 

The real issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby was whether the federal government could compel these corporations to provide abortion inducing contraceptives under the ruse of providing health care to women.

Religious Liberty prevailed, for now...

[dairygirl4u2c]

hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-more-just-abortifacients-matt-bowman

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381719/hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-more-just-abortifacients-matt-bowman

[add]

Justice Ginsberg got it 100 percent right in her dissent: "Companies can now opt out of any law."

Now you can say you oppose blood transfusions because you're a Jehovah's Witness.

You can say you oppose anti-depressants because you're a Scientologist.

You can say you won't take a medication derived from pigs because you're a religious Muslim or Jew.

In other words, now almost anybody can opt out of the laws Ginsberg and her colleagues have written over the last 20 years that have damaged America.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the other slippery slope had the obama adminstration won would be that the first amendment could come to mean nothing. it's got to mean something, even when there are compelling policy considerations that say otherwise.

 

again, the only realy way to approach it, is to say that contraception and abortifacents are well established traditionally opposed ideas, religious beliefs. it should only be treated as a categorical exception. this prevents the slippery slope both ways.

 

if it's so well established trationally, and well within reason, it should be protected. if if's not traditional, and less within reason, it gets a little harder... if it's genuine, we should try very hard to protect that too.

 

but the current case they had before them is not such a thorny issue.

[add]

the other slippery slope had the obama adminstration won would be that the first amendment could come to mean nothing. it's got to mean something, even when there are compelling policy considerations that say otherwise.

again, the only realy way to approach it, is to say that contraception and abortifacents are well established traditionally opposed ideas, religious beliefs. it should only be treated as a categorical exception. this prevents the slippery slope both ways.

if it's so well established trationally, and well within reason, it should be protected. if if's not traditional, and less within reason, it gets a little harder... if it's genuine, we should try very hard to protect that too.

but the current case they had before them is not such a thorny issue.

In a pigs eye, There's nothing slippery slope about this. Religious freedom is absolute

[dairygirl4u2c]

there are nearly no abosulte rights in the constitution. even the first amendment free speech as at least five categories of recognized exceptions. with the gun regulatinos we do have, there are at least some restrictions on guns.

[add]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is a absolute right of a established religion to exercise it's beliefs without government obstruction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, almost surely almost all of the supreme court justices disagree with you. most legal scholars disagree with you. and it flies in the face of decades if not centures of well established legal precedent, that also disagrees with you.

 

but that doesn't mean you can't believe whatever you want.

 

it's your first amendment right

 

..... or is it??????