The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Ramona's picture

    Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy


    Today the Supreme Court ruled that private, family-owned businesses--in this case, Hobby Lobby--could opt out of paying for contraceptives if their objections to them are based on the owners' religious beliefs.

    The case came to the attention of the Supremes when the Affordable Care Act included this mandate:

    Birth control benefits:
    Plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace must cover contraceptive methods and counseling for all women, as prescribed by a health care provider.
    These plans must cover the services without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible when they are provided by an in-network provider.

    Covered contraceptive methods:

    All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:
    • Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
    • Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
    • Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
    • Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
    • Sterilization procedures
    • Patient education and counseling
    Plans aren’t required to cover:
    • Drugs to induce abortions
    • Services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies

    Hobby Lobby argues that they don't want to pay for any services that might cause the end of life.  They consider FDA-approved morning-after pills--like Plan B--abortion pills, even though the pills have to be used within 72 hours after intercourse.  Within three days.  They consider certain IUDs as obstacles in the path of fertilized eggs.  (Fertilized eggs are apparently babies in their eyes.)

    If the owners of Hobby Lobby want to believe that life begins at conception, let them.  It's a free country.  They can believe anything they want to believe, religious or otherwise.  What they can't do--or shouldn't be able to do--is to push their religious beliefs on their employees.  One of the benefits of the newly minted Affordable Care Act was a mandate to provide free contraceptive care for women who need it.  Hobby Lobby balked and decided they shouldn't have to pay for something that might keep women from having babies. 

    When the Right Wing came up with the loony notion that life begins at conception, they opened the doors to misusing religion to force women to give up the ability to forestall pregnancies. There is no legitimate religious basis for denying women the right to free contraception.  None at all.

    Contraception isn't, by definition, abortion, except in the minds of those looking for any excuse to involve themselves in deciding for women when they should have children.   When contraception is the obvious and most humane solution to unwanted pregnancies, there is no humane reason not to make it available and free. 

    So what I'm seeing from those five men on the Supreme Court is yet another example of ideology as law.  ("Corporations are people" being the most jaw-dropping and the most precedent-forming.  Hobby Lobby couldn't have won without it.)  They're treading on dangerous territory.  They're giving judicial approval to religious solutions for societal issues, and, as the judicial branch of a secular government, they're knowingly abusing their authority.

    But worse, they're telling women that when it comes to reproductive protections, religious theory trumps their right not to be burdened by the worry of unintended pregnancies. 

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent, said this:

    Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.
    Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

    We are a country made up of diverse cultures and religions.  We welcome them, we encourage them, we give them the freedom to live within their own cultures and worship within their own religions.  At the same time, we expect the freedom not to have to follow along.

    But this Supreme Court, in the name of free speech, just forced us to give in to specific religious beliefs.  There was a time when that would have been inconceivable.  

    Lord knows, we were safer then.


    I just came on line to see if anyone here had written about this.  So I will add my 2 cents to it. 

    The Green family is involved in GOP politics and has been for a long time even before ACA.  This was a orchestrated and planned by collusion.  It was to stick a knife in ACA.  We have a court deciding they have the power to legislate the ideas of the John Birch Society.  It has everything to do with promoting an oligarchy.  Religion is just a vehicle to move that along.  

    Now they will have to deal with the back lash.  Women is the largest voting block in this country and they only have to move a couple of points left to make the GOP a minor player in politics. These old black robes just handed the Democrats something to hammer away on the Republicans. 

    I am sure the House will get right down to suing the President also over his executive orders on not expelling Dreamers.  That is a hot issue they think they can exploit.That gives the Latino Americans a reason to go to the polls and vote Democrat. It will also light a fire under African Americans to stand in line.

    What a bunch of out of touch fools. 

     Hobby Lobby will take a hit on this too.

    I hope you're right, Momoe.  So far I've seen more comments than I care to from Right Wing women who are cheering the ruling.  It's the usual crap:  well, if those women have to pay for their own birth control--especially the expensive morning-after pill--maybe they'll think twice about fooling around. 

    I'm not kidding.  I've read this many times today.  It's sickening.


    But have you noted, republican controlled state legislatures have been occupied with passing legislation clipping the wings off voters who disproportional vote for democrats? The mid-terms will be the watermark to see if their efforts bear fruit. If they do succeed, then I suspect they'll be redoubling their efforts to minimize woman's right to exercise their right to vote for the general election in 2016.


    Yes they did Mona. Ugh, I'm not even going to bother ranting about it, because Justice Ginsberg did it for us all. 

    As consumers, we have a great deal of power. I think women can put Hobby Lobby out of business. Yes I actually mean that. That's fine, they won their suit, let's make them pay for that. Let's promote Dick Blick or a tiny local store or fucking But let's all make a concerted effort to boycott Hobby Lobby. Tell all your women friends, let's do it, we buy fucking craft shit all the time. Let's take a vow to never ever shop at Hobby Lobby or it's affiliates ever, tell all your women friends, and tell them to tell all their women friends too.  I'm also dead sure that the Supreme Court just gave the democrats the best ads of the season. Democrats are going to take this and run with it, this could be the straw that breaks the camels back, and relegates them to minority status forever. Every senate seat that is up for re-election in a red state will be organizing women and getting them out to vote. It's a no-brainer really. The political ads are writing themselves.  I don't know that Republicans are really prepared for this.

    I've never shopped at Hobby Lobby and I don't plan to. Ever.  All the angry people are busy thinking up ways to let them know how this is hitting us.  Someone suggested we go in, fill a cart full of stuff, then take it to the register, unload it, and tell the cashier we're going to Michael's (or somewhere similar) to buy the same stuff.  Because. . .

    The idea is that a boycott doesn't tell them anything about who might have been shopping there but no longer is.  This way they'll get the message.  I like it!

    But it will hurt their bottom line.  The organized protests against Rush L. has worked and he has lost a big part of his advertisers and also major market radio stations. Advertisers are now refusing to buy time with AM stations unless they promise not to put them in time slots during Rush's show. His ratings are now in the toilet.

    Chick fil a CEO just made an apology a month or so ago for his stand on gay marriage.  That boycott hurt.  Enough people just decided in the south not to eat there.  

    Women are really mad at this.  I expect many will just not shop there for Chines imports made by women who are forced to have just one child.  Where is their moral religious stand on that.  


    The boycotters are starting to organize. 

    This is on Kos by Nancy Jones.  She is a Dream Defender that kept all the Kos reader informed on all that was happening in the Tallahassee sit in last summer protesting the SYG law here in Florida.  She ate her share of pizza and slept on the floor during the protest.  They have been registering voters here in Florida since then.  Very well organized state wide with chapters in all college towns. I see a future leader in her.  It might make you feel a little better to read.

    Another group was also out today in WA with signs in front of HL.  They got lots of honks.  People are paying attention to this. Women today are super busy but we can always take out money somewhere else.

    This nonsensical decision separating out "closely held" corporations could theoretically exempt 90% of US corporations and effect 52% of US workers.

    The religious beliefs of the workers are trumped by the religious beliefs of the corporations.

    The Supreme Court enforces a barrier against protestors but denied a barrier for clinics supplying abortion. The Court said that remedies were no longer needed for voter suppression so they gutted the Voting Rights Act. Texas and North Carolina immediately began suppressing votes. The current Supreme Court will go down as one of the worst in history.


    Going Obsolete Party's Robert's Court.  I wonder if they will make his statue face the wall. 

    Thanks for the link.  Even if few women loose their coverage, they are tired of this crap from the right.  

    There's one more step SCOTUS needs to take to earn that distinction ... decide in favor for a "business entity" to review your past voting records to determine if your political ideology is aligned with their corporate political philosophy.

    You're right, Ramona. 100 percent right. Totally crazy, unsustainable, setting impossiple precedents.

    And any Roman Catholic justice who votes to empower private religious bigotry has either forgotten the history of Roman Catholics in this country or refused to understand it.

    Since Richard isn't here today.

    Here's one detail that I don't see anyone discussing, so maybe I'm misinformed, but isn't it true that (under RomneyCare) the Hobby Lobby stores in Massachusetts had to obey the same mandate prior to the passage of ObamaCare? Isn't it also true that they didn't complain about it?

    Yes you are right.  They had been providing insurance to cover all reproductive health care before ACA.  They are political active before this and took a stand that others thought would unravel ACA and hurt the AA President.  It is all about political power.  If they can't win in the ballot box they have a court that is in their back pocket. That is what all the corporate person hood is all about.  The court is now a tool for the oligarchy. Eventually the political branches of our government will have to assert themselves against the over reach of the court. 

    One other thought: isn't the health care cost of contraception much cheaper than the health care cost of pregnancy and child birth, to say nothing of the health care cost of the child after birth? If anyone has the numbers on that, it'd be much appreciated. I'm guessing that even a (reproductive) life-time of contraceptive care is cheaper than a single pregnancy and birth.

    Latest Comments