Skip to main content

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media about an immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington June 18, 2013.  REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is promising quick action to reverse the Hobby Lobby decision to allow private-sector companies to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Democrats will take up legislation in the “coming weeks” to address last month’s Supreme Court decision that allowed some employers with religious objections to opt out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate. […]

“We’re going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday as he ticked off the Senate’s to-do list over the next several weeks.

The "something" they can do is as of yet unclear. It could be amending the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law underpinning the court's decision, to clarify that those rights are intended just for actual, individual humans and not corporations. There are also potential actions to find a work around within Obamacare to cover those employees the court would leave out.

Any of those actions won't solve the problem, at least in the short term, because Senate Republicans will probably block any legislation fixing this, and if they don't manage to stop it, the Republican House wouldn't take it up anyway. But action is necessary, and that action—and the inevitable Republican blocking of it—is something Democrats can point to between now and November's elections. Hobby Lobby could end up being the Republicans' worse nightmare since the surge in Obamacare enrollments.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:18 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd love, love, love for this to be the iceberg (31+ / 0-)

    that would finally sink the Republican Titanic.  Just not going to hold my breath, however.  So many other things were going to finally be the tipping point, but so far voting rights, paycheck fairness, war on women, climate change, income inequality, over-reach on Benghazi and other faux scandals, the ACA's success, gun violence, immigration, the internal GOP war, etc, have all been predicted to be the final straw that would break the GOP's back and I still see them going strong here in purple Colorado.

  •  I think it will be very interesting to see what (12+ / 0-)

    language is crafted to amend the RFRA that can attract 50 votes.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:26:13 PM PDT

    •  I'll end the suspense for you, VClib: (7+ / 0-)

      NONE

      This is nothing more than a ploy to rile up the base ahead of the midterms. You see, Harry Reid knows that this Hobby Lobby decision has lit a fire of enthusiasm under conservatives...and that Democrats are doomed if we can't inspire the same among our base.

      Therefore, he throws this idea out to the hungry wolves who are looking for ANY solace on the heels of the outrage.

      It won't improve the quality of care delivered via the ACA.

      It won't change anything fundamental that came out of the SCOTUS decision.

      It won't change a single freaking thing.

      It will get ZERO traction in the senate.

      But our side will cheer and stomp this show of "leadership"...thinking that we are scoring political points, but forgetting conveniently the fact that the American public's collective attention span is less than my 9 year-old's.

      You see, THIS is what happens when we cut a back-room deal with "moderates" to pass and sign a watered-down POS that relies on insurance premium subsidies (which may be the next shoe to drop and doom the ACA) and favorable SCOTUS rulings (see where that has gotten us).

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:03:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll believe it after it's voted on..., (12+ / 0-)

    ... signed, sealed, and signed by the prez.  Maybe.  If it does not have too many loopholes and exemptions and special permissions because of religious beliefs.

    Meanwhile, it's another empty promise in a long list of empty promises over the last 15 years.

    Cretinous Congress Critters need to learn to write clear, concise laws WITHOUT loopholes big enough to fly jumbo jets through.

    So, Harry... Get it passed or STFU.  Telling us what you'd like to do isn't getting the job done when you can't get the obstructionist Repukes to change their closed little minds (and that goes double for the minority of Democrats who vote so conservatively that I still wonder why they don't just change their political affiliation to R and put us all out of our misery so we can elect progressive Dems).

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:29:08 PM PDT

    •  Nothing Can Be Signed By the President. (28+ / 0-)

      We can't legislate.

      But the Senate can pass a bill and the Democrats can use the Republican refusal in the House to campaign for a Democratic House as soon as possible.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And this kills their alibi (16+ / 0-)

        At the moment, people might think that this is a Supreme Court decision, it is nothing to do with Republicans.

        As soon as they block the fix, Hobby Lobby is their policy.

        •  It's already their policy by association (5+ / 0-)

          but as soon as they block the fix, it becomes KNOWN that it's their policy.

          Of course the talking heads will dismiss it by pointing out that HL employees still have 16 OTHER choices... which may be true at this moment, BUT
          1. HL could easily amend their policy to discontinue coverage of all contraceptives,
          2. The SCOTUS decisio doesn't only apply to this singular case (no matter what Alito may want you to believe) and most importantly,
          3. There is a REASON there are 20 different types of contraceptives; that being that not all medications -- and not all PATIENTS -- are created equal.  For those who fall among the ones who can only tolerate/only respond to one of the four non-covered ones... bad luck, that.  Here's an aspirin for your knees.  Thank you for shopping Hobby Lobby, and fuck you very much.

          This needs to be hammered into the skull of every numbnuts that tries to mansplain away the impact of this decision on the lives of very real people.  Preferably with a 12# sledgehammer.

          I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

          by mojo11 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:35:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Pipe dream... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi, NonnyO, Rodaku

        You really think that such a move will win us any votes we didn't already have?

        I fucking hate cheap parlor tricks. This reeks of one specifically designed to score points right before the midterm election.

        We're not winning the House unless a political miracle happens. Our best-case viable scenario is holding the senate...narrowly.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:07:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm totally flummoxed. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PinHole, NonnyO, pitbullgirl65, raynmakr, mst66

          What I honestly do NOT understand is how and why the GOP continues to be such a threat.  Why does ANYONE except old white men vote for them?  I don't mean this to be insulting.  I simply just don't understand how ANYBODY votes for people who believe in such an unjust agenda.

        •  This is déjà vu (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreenMother, raynmakr, raspberryberet
          This reeks of one specifically designed to score points right before the midterm election.
          I have a long memory and I don't forgive politicians who say "Vote for me and we'll get this done."

          2006 Conyers drafted an impeachment resolution.  He got something like 22 (?) co-sponsors, one who was my Dem Rep at the time and had been in the House for many, many years.  The pre-election rhetoric was "Vote for us and we'll get Bush removed."

          By Feb. '07 I wrote to my Rep and asked when they were going to start impeachment proceedings.  He wrote back that they couldn't do it for fear of "Republican backlash."  Conyers sat like a shamed dog with his head down at a table and ate a LOT of humble pie when he met with veterans who wanted Dumbya & Dickie impeached.  I watched it online on C-SPAN.  

          For the '08 election cycle I left the Rep ovals blank because I was so pissed that nothing was ever done about impeaching Dumbya &/or Dickie.  I will never vote for Repukes, but my Voter Version of "present but not voting" which I see on roll call lists sometimes is to occasionally leave the ovals blank if a Dem does something disagreeable, and vote for all the other Dem candidates for whichever federal or state or local categories.  In '10 I had to relent and vote for my Dem Rep because a Teahadist was his opponent (the Teahadist won, and my Dem Rep was so rude he didn't show up for the hand-over; after all those years he felt the office was his for life, I guess).  By '12 everyone was disgusted with the Teahadist.  He spent more time out of state where his son was in a special school than he did in the state, so he was chastised for not being around long enough to even be a resident, among other things.

          Luckily, in '12 there was a Dem who'd been in the House many, may years ago in a different district in this state, now lived in this district where he had a business (now retired, back in politics), and he gets that Soc Sec and Medicare are earned benefits, not welfare entitlements, etc.  He was elected (yes, he got my vote).  I signed up for his weekly newsletter, so I've been monitoring him.  So far, so good, but he has some iffy positions on KXL ('jobs, jobs, jobs' is the excuse for letting pollution run rampant, it seems, even for Dems - our Dem governor, along with the Repukes - favored a stadium bill which provides corporate welfare to pro sports teams, and we pay for this idiocy with state tax dollars).

          I don't forgive Pelosi for her "impeachment is off the table" stance, or for her bringing FISA '08 back to life after it had been voted down.  I don't forgive my previous Dem Rep (even tho he died recently) or Conyers for not proceeding with impeachment. I don't forgive the bloody grandstanding of politicians who don't abide by their oath of office, who don't get anything done except idiotic posturing before cameras while uttering inanities, and leave a trail of broken promises of things they promised to do BEFORE election day and then do nothing once they're in office.

          My position regarding politicians now is:  Don't say "I will get this passed after election day if you vote for me."  You do your job NOW and get something done NOW..., or I'll find someone else to vote for, or leave the ovals blank, or do a write-in candidate.  "Going to do it" will not get the job done, and I know it from past experience..., which is why I don't believe Reid over his latest fiasco - and yes, I think he is 'trying to score points for the midterm election cycle.'

          If Reid - or the rest of the Senate and/or House - can't get this proposed law passed BEFORE election day, it certainly won't be up for a vote after election day either.  Yes, Congress CAN move faster than a speeding glacier.  Occasionally.  I watched with fascinated horror as this occurred right before my eyes on C-SPAN.  The speed at which that idiotic FISA fiasco '08 passed that Friday morning in the summer of '08 took my breath away.  They re-introduced the bill, limited the "debate" to one hour, voted, and it was signed and hand-carried to the Senate by noon.  The telecoms wanted their immunity for violating our privacy at the direct orders of Dumbya and/or Dickie, and they wanted it immediately, if not sooner.  The only reason the Senate didn't deal with it the same afternoon was the fact that most had already left town for campaigning; the following Mon or Tue they had a funeral for one of their own, so that put the FISA vote delayed until Wednesday, and it passed as fast in the Senate as it had in the House.

          When I was still in the working world, I had to get my work done before I could get paid.  That's the way things are done in the world of grown-ups.  No one gets paid for work they promise they will do in the future..., except politicians - and, of course, they never get around to fulfilling their campaign promises.  (Remember all the promises Candidate Obama made - and then didn't do after he was elected?  Some "Change.")

          Well, if these people who are already elected can't get things done, they don't deserve to be re-elected either.  That goes for every one of them, from the ones who have been there for so many years they're an institution all their own to the ones still in their first term.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:42:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nonny - it won't be on the agenda in the House (4+ / 0-)

      unless Reid really pulls a rabbit out of the hat and can craft an amendment that gets 80+ votes in the Senate. Then it could have a chance in the House. I'll be interested to see if he can craft an amendment that gets 50 votes in the Senate.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:00:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There was no loophole. (4+ / 0-)

      Please--there was no "loophole" in the RFRA. The Supreme Court just wrote one in.

  •  Headlines: Reid Launches New War on Religion! (11+ / 0-)

    Or, something to that effect if Reid tries to change the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    I think he would be better to try to create a program whereby the government pays for contraception not covered in private plans that have been exempted.

    Neither effort would pass the House.. but the latter would be a more positive action to take to the voters this November.  And the Repubs blocking it would be icing on the cake.

    •  JJ - I think you are on the right path (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Sitzman, MichaelNY

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:01:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can the SCOTUS decision be "vacated" if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raynmakr

      congress does NOT provide the alternative plan for these employees? It is the existence of the alternative that allowed Alito to say, hey, no big deal then.

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:08:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Alito seemed to be implying (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, nextstep, Lipstick Liberal

        that the president had the option to do it administratively as he had attempted to do for nonprofit religious corporations. That would not make non-action by congress controlling.

      •  Why would SCOTUS vacate... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        ...the decision just because the legislative process didn't yield another means that meets the "least restrictive" requirement?

        Existence of a less restrictive means of achieving the goal isn't a requirement for determining that a particular solution isn't the least restrictive possible.

        The majority opinion just mentioned that in this case there was no question there was a less (not necessarily least by the way) restrictive way because HHS had already developed one such way.

      •  merrywidow - short answer NO (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, raynmakr

        Congress could vacate the Court's entire decision by amending the RFRA, but the Court isn't going to change its decision based on the actions of Congress or the administration.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:40:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But, how do those women get the exemption? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WiddieDawg, raynmakr

      Already companies are asking the Supreme Court why they have to provide female employees with a Federal form to allow them to get "abortion passes".  They argue that just signing this religious exemption form for the female employee is covered under RFRA.  This just happened. Will look for a reference...

      We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others...and we should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms. George Takei 7/1/14

      by Lipstick Liberal on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:25:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Beyond Hobby Lobby. Universal Free Birth Control (15+ / 0-)

    Pres Obama, Congressional Democrats and deficit minded Republicans should push for Universal Free Birth Control.

    The Federal government should purchase drugs and devices in bulk from manufacturers through competitive bidding.  It should then provide these products at no charge to healthcare providers, clinics, hospitals, schools, drugstores, grocery stores, convenience stores, etc, on condition they provide to customers at no charge. Make these products available to all, including the uninsured, undocumented immigrants even visitors to the US.

    Provide condoms under the program and free vasectomies to US residents.  Birth control is not exclusively the responsibility of women.

    I would expect CBO would calculate this program would actually save the Federal government money over 10 years from lower healthcare and other social costs.

    This would also reduce the cost of private insurance, as well as Medicaid.

    This would help strengthen the idea that government can do things to reduce the cost of healthcare.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:42:14 PM PDT

    •  Huh? Obama would never sign it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today, corvo
      The Federal government should purchase drugs and devices in bulk from manufacturers through competitive bidding.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:53:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would Obama never sign it? (5+ / 0-)

        Where do you get off asserting that the President who fought for the ACA and for coverage for women's health care needs (without cost sharing or copay) wouldn't choose a more comprehensive contraceptive coverage plan if he could? This particular solution might not be workable given the current composition of the House and Senate but the President would most certainly sign it if he could.

        •  Obama had a shit fit during the ACA (5+ / 0-)

          run-up over two things and two things only, otherwise pretty much not giving a shit about what wound up in it or out of it, like public option:

          1) Legalizing importation and re-importation of drugs was suggested and he adamantly opposed it.

          2) It was suggested that existing prohibitions against competitive bidding by the government for drugs and medicines be removed. Obama adamantly opposed it.

          History is informative if one pays some attention to it while it is still current events. What he adamantly opposed then he is unlikely to champion now.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:40:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not to mention that All Male Sexual medications... (4+ / 0-)

            ...and treatment, Including Viagra!, are covered under the law via Hobby Lobby.  The 5 Catholic Men on the Supreme Court don't see any male contraceptives or ED drugs as "morally offensive"and would not be grounds for a Religious Objection under Hobby. Sexist and Misogynist.

            We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others...and we should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms. George Takei 7/1/14

            by Lipstick Liberal on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 04:55:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That was the result of a deal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, raynmakr

            with the pharmaceutical companies.  Big Pharma agreed to let the reform go through as long as Obama protected their profits.

            Same with the health insurance industry.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:21:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the pharmaceuticals are all out of (0+ / 0-)

              business now, or what?

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:41:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe we outta start a KICKSTARTER--- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                enhydra lutris

                Maybe we outta get a KICKSTARTER going to hire BUS TOURS to CANADA and MEXICO to buy these drugs--and get these treatments----

                And make sure ALL of the news outlets AND Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert and Jimmie Fallon are ON THESE BUS'es

                And raise enough MONEY to PAY for all of this.  

                Sometimes ya just gotta slap 'em. .

    •  Fine with me (2+ / 0-)

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:35:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  LOL, like that would ever happen (0+ / 0-)

      in the puritanical US.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:19:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Under ACA we have something close to Free BC (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raynmakr

        already.  The difference would be covering those without. Insurance or Medicaid, and all employers with objections to BC have the issue removed from their lives.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:35:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not for long (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raynmakr

          Give it a few more SC rulings, and that free BC provided under ACA will be history.

          It's not like the GOP has to worry about young women voting them out.  They show up for the presidential elections but don't bother about congressional elections.

          Note:  Young men don't fucking vote in useful numbers either.  It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with age and distractions (entertainment, social media, drugs, sex, corporate rock/pop, etc.).

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:44:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  do it, Harry!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Undo the Corporations are people law....because they aren't!!!!!!!!!

  •  Hobby Lobby (8+ / 0-)

    Please go and take care of business Harry. The Supreme Court made a terrible mistake with the decision with Hobby Lobby. They let their religious beliefs smash the US Constitution into the ground. Wake up America. This is only the beginning. Wait until they come for your rights.

  •  Just repeal the damn thing. It is both (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, OldDragon, atana, raynmakr

    odious and otiose.

    It could be amending the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law underpinning the court's decision, to clarify that those rights are intended just for actual, individual humans and not corporations.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:52:41 PM PDT

    •  There is no consensus in Congress to repeal RFRA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love, august88, MichaelNY

      It will be difficult to even pass an amendment in both the Senate and House.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:02:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correct, and there is no consensus to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, atana

        amend it either, so we need to create a consensus through election and argumentation. That being the case, why go half-way, it is a sorry ass law full of terrible provisions that should never have been passed in the first place. We need to take this incessant drive towrd theocracy on head on, not by trying to nibble at its heals as it runs over us.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:31:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know why the law was passed? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hmi

          Would you like the Federal government to resume persecuting the Native American Church for its sacramental use of peyote?

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:56:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bwahahahahahaha. That has nothing to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, raynmakr, HoneyBeePrime

            do with why it was passed. It was all about white protestant churches suffering from things like zoning ordinances and propaganda regarding foreign nations that did not give Christians the respect and homage to which they felt entitled.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:44:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You may not remember when it was passed (0+ / 0-)

              I do, and moreover, read the "Background and passage" section of this article.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:48:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do remember when it was passed, and (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, raynmakr, raspberryberet

                I suggest that you read that article and the link to the AIFRA.  The way to cure the defects in the AIFRA, such as lack of an enforcement mechanism, was to amend AIFRA to, among other things, include an enforcement mechanism. It was amended to address some of those concerns, specifically related to Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith but only some, and not the lack of an enforcement provision. That was left to the RFRA.

                Why? Because the RFRA, unlike the AIFRA wasn't about Native Americans. The SMith decision ws used as an excuse to justify the RFRA which was intended to allow white churches to overturn state, city and county ordinances.

                At the time there was a tremendous amount of whining from mainline and extremist protestant and, to a lesser extent, Catholic churches about being oppressed by things like zoning and such, and that is where the pressure for the RFRA law came from.

                The article notes:
                 

                Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion.[8]
                Guess what, the trick failed, the Supremes ruled that the RFRA doesn't apply to states and their subdivisions. It didn't achieve its intended purpose. Now, all it does is overturn Smith as to overturning Sherbert v. Verner (not a Native American Case) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (ditto).

                So:
                1) Fix AIRFA, including enforcement and specifically address sacred places because they are of and upon the land and hence irreplaceable

                2) Lose the RFRA with its massively failed overreach and its current overreach.

                Pass a limited RFRA to overturn Smith and reinstate Sherbert v. Verner and WI v Yoder but with a proviso that: a) persons other than churches and religious persons also have rights and burdens that must also be balanced whenever considering alleged burdens on churches and b) the inability to enforce your religious beliefs and prejudices upon others through any direct or indirect means is not a burden upon your sorry ass religion.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:00:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Bad solution. End the War on Drugs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raspberryberet

            There is no reason peyote should be illegal.

            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

            by atana on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 04:26:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And after that, sign the bill to make single-payer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dougymi

      ...the law of the land.

      After that, I can get on with my life as Kate Upton's husband.

      Oh hell...we can all dream, right?

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:09:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good... Get her away from Justin Verlander. (0+ / 0-)

        She's sapping his strength and making him a worse pitcher! Damn.... she must be good...

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:55:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Get republicans on the record voting against (10+ / 0-)

    Allowing people to supplement their own insurance with ryders that provide for contraceptives, and you will have people go nuts.

    'what, now people can't spend their own money'  (which is really what is happening now)

    Put it this way:  "Allow insurance companies to provide reproductive care insurance as a private ryder those who already have a plan can adopt'.  

    The fee insurance companies would have is minimal.. why?  Because insurance companies would significantly prefer you NOT GET PREGNANT than pay for maternity!   This is just a fact.  

    Then, when someone says: "Look, XYZ Insurance will offer people who already have a plan a ryder for $15/$20 the cost of a co-pay for alternative care" ..

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle
    >Follow @tmservo433

    by Chris Reeves on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:54:15 PM PDT

    •  tm - I think that's the path to take (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmservo433, august88, MichaelNY

      something that has a chance to be supported on a bipartisan basis.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:04:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But are the women paying the extra cost? (6+ / 0-)

        that is NOT how it's supposed to be

        "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

        by merrywidow on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would agree, however.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, OldDragon

          First, in the large part, I completely agree.   This shouldn't be an additional cost.  

          On the other hand, if the cost is made minimal or non-existant (which, FYI, is completely possible: have a very small buy in and then an end of year tax credit to offset) then it becomes $0.  

          But I think you have to work this to make it so minimal, and yet contingent on them having insurance through someone who doesn't provide it to really highlight the stupid nature of denying it to begin with.

          Actually, someone elsewhere pointed out that you might be able to work out a prebuilt health savings credit, get insurers to say:  If you opt into reproductive care on X, on your own, we'll send you a re-imbursement check on the difference between the more expensive insurance you have and one that doesn't, (which is generally a small bit greater than what those pay without it).

          It's a paperwork nightmare, but it would be a bit.. humorous too.  

          I'm just toying with ideas in my head at the moment.   We've all been put in a tricky situation and it will take some creative work to back out of it

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle
          >Follow @tmservo433

          by Chris Reeves on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:11:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They could give the plan member the right (0+ / 0-)

            to certify for the insurer/TPA that the HL or Wheaton College health plan doesn't cover contraception. The insurer/TPA pays the cost of the contraceptives per the 2012 compromise; HL/WC don't have to pay for the provision of the services or assume the terrible burden of filling out a two-page form to declare their exemption...but the plan members get all FDA-approved contraception at no out-of-pocket cost, as is proper per the coverage mandate.

    •  No they won't. (0+ / 0-)

      The women who use birth control are generally young, as in, pre-menopause.  

      The women who vote are overwhelmingly old.

      Thus, the rights of young women can be dismissed by Washington.  

      Ok, so maybe when health insurance stops covering their birth control, they will take a break from social media to go vote?  Ok, fine, but for whom?  What if they blame Obamacare for the lack of contraception coverage?  Why wouldn't they blame Obamacare if Fox News and Facebook posts tell them to?  

      Not only do we need them to vote, we need them to make an informed vote.  

      Not going to happen this fall.  Maybe in ten years, after a new womens movement informs young ladies what the fuck is up.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:26:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Congress has no choice but to act or the employees (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, mwm341, raspberryberet

    of all the companies that deny access to BC can sue for 14th amendment violation of equal treatment under the law

    don't think congress would prefer that

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:01:55 PM PDT

  •  "Taxpayers will not pay for your sex pills, sluts" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love

    nope not us either is what Congress will say

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:04:55 PM PDT

    •  Hobby Lobby decision doesn't (5+ / 0-)

      require the taxpayers to pick up the cost. The majority's opinion rationalized that the insurance administrator, which is a privately owned insurer, would save money by paying for contraception itself because pregnancies are more expensive.

      Thus it is in the insurer's financial interest to minimize the number of pregnancies at Hobby Lobby, for example, and the best method to accomplish that is to provide contraception at their own cost.

      Alcohol preserves everything ... except secrets.

      by august88 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They should focus less on Hobby Lobby (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, OldDragon, HoneyBeePrime

    per se, and focus more on the "corporations are people" aspect that drove both Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United and, I fear, could drive additional SCOTUS extremism unless stopped.

    "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

    by Mr MadAsHell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:06:45 PM PDT

    •  Mr M - there is little the Senate or Congress (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      can do on the "corporations are people" issue. The SCOTUS has never ruled that corporations are people, although that is a popular view here. In the broader issue of corporate personhood, that goes back to the late nineteenth century and is baked into hundreds of state and federal court rulings and laws.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:27:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, VClib

      First look at the Dictionary Act, 1 USC 1. It defines a corporation (any corporation) as a “person” under a federal statute (any statute) unless context indicates otherwise.

      This is where Alito turned for the definition in his Hobby Lobby opinion and this is where it would have to be changed. I am not familiar with the history of the Dictionary Act so we first must look to see what congress had intended before we recommend such a wholesale change.

      Alcohol preserves everything ... except secrets.

      by august88 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:35:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since The Constitution Was First Amended... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi

      Corporations have been treated as people.  The First Amendment gave corporations the right of free speech.

      Corporations can be charged with criminal acts.  A recent and noteworthy case was the auditing firm, Arthur Andersen which was criminally charged and convicted in Federal Court.

      Any change of how the law treats corporations would probably need a Constitutional Amendment.

      How would you take away a corporations right to free speech without affecting newspapers, television, etc.?  I Know, I Know....money isn't  free speech.

      But it is.  Would you rather the Koch Brothers buy TV Networks and cable systems and use them for  political purposes?

      •  The churches and nonprofits (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi

        that were already being religious accommodation in the matter are all incorporated bodies. That makes the corporations. Church corporations have long been recognized as having religious rights. Is there some constitutional difference between nonprofit and for profit corporations?

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        The First Amendment gives corporations the right of free speech because they are associations of persons, just like the NAACP, the Democratic Party, etc. It does not make corporations persons.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No you are wrong. The Constitution differentiat... (0+ / 0-)

        No you are wrong. The Constitution differentiated between a natural person and a "made up" corporate person.

        The reason being one of the main issues that caused the Revolution was the outsourced Corporate Rule given to the East India Trading Company by King George (that is what caused the Tea Party).

        Corporate personhood was tightly controlled until a decision by SCOTUS in 1887. SCOTUS denied any change in personhood but a court technician, ex-Governor of New York and on the payrole of the RAILROADS, put a cover synopsis on the decision that gave natural personhood to the corporations. This country has based its legal precedence on this bribed lie ever since. If you want a more detailed explanation, Thom Hartmann has written a book on it.

  •  Great diary, Joan. One minor grammar suggestion? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, DontTaseMeBro
    Hobby Lobby could end up being the Republicans' worse nightmare since the surge in Obamacare enrollments.
    Seems to me this should be "Republicans' worst nightmare."

    Thanks again for the diary.

    Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

    by Jon Sitzman on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:17:12 PM PDT

  •  I like a fix where anyone with a theocratic boss (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, martydd, cocinero

    becomes eligible for ACA coverage as if they had had no employer coverage.  

    We need to break the link between employement and health insurance anyway.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:20:08 PM PDT

  •  polls (0+ / 0-)

    Polls always show Americans overwhelmingly in favor of birth control.   Would it cost so much that some Democratic PAC couldn't help form a private charity to help those denied coverage by SCOTUS/Hobby Lobby?  That would surely win votes--a win/win.  And most importantly, help those women who have been mistreated.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:22:25 PM PDT

  •  the states can take action now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon, MichaelNY, cocinero

    RFRA doesn't apply to state law and the ACA expressly permits states to provide additional protections.

    •  Some state laws (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      already require health insurance plans to include birth control with no exemption for religious organizations. But that only applies to state-regulated plans. Large multi-state corporations have health insurance plans regulated by the federal government.

  •  This should put everyone on the record (0+ / 0-)

    On the Dem side, it will be the "pro-lifers" like Pryor, Manchin and Donnelly. Amongst the GOP, it will force Collins, Kirk etc to make up their minds one way or the other (Collins supported the Blunt Amendment in the past).

  •  Diarist Makes it Clear: "Quick Action" (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't actually mean meaningful legislation will be passed;

    Any of those actions won't solve the problem, at least in the short term, because Senate Republicans will probably block any legislation fixing this, and if they don't manage to stop it, the Republican House wouldn't take it up anyway.
    the actual takeaway here is GOP blockage of any legislation that actually gets to the senate floor for a vote will automatically lead to anti GOP votes this fall-- and wins for democratic candidates.

    I'm skeptical. I don't see democratic GOTV efforts being more effective than the GOP efforts.

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:41:26 PM PDT

  •  Halbig v. Sebilius Got Me Very Worried (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, mwm341

    According to court observers, a three panel judge in the DC Circuit is likely to hold that subsidies to low income people in the states using the Federal Exchange violates the ACA. This would in effect repeal Obamacare in 34 states. I think this is a sleeper case that people have start paying attention to. This case has a good chance to be the biggest case at the Supreme Court next year.

    •  NO - the Halbig case could be very problematic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      I wrote a diary about it in May. You can find it here:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      It will definitely be at the SCOTUS next term.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:11:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ????? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I don't understand what you are saying no to. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assessment of the case. The IRS ruling is consistent with the evidence of the legislative intent of the Act. I disagree with your four corners approach of interpreting laws.

        Finally, if the Court rules against the IRS interpretation, congress WILL NOT come up with a fix. Most likely, repeal of the legislation will gain momentum, although that issue will have to ultimately be decided by the 2016 election.

        My guess, is that if the Court rules against the IRS interpretation, Obamacare will collapse. People will revolt against a system that doesn't offer subsidies, yet punishes the lower income people with fines if they don't buy health insurance that they cannot afford. If you think that will cause red states to implement state exchanges, you are dreaming. Rather, they will jump with joy and call for full repeal. The question will be if States will be able to implement parts of Obamacare or will we go back to the pre-Obamacare system.

        •  Nice Ogre - I was using your initials, NO (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry for the confusion. If you read the briefs in the case, submitted to the DC Court of Appeals, a Justice can justify ruling on either side of this case. I don't think that the SCOTUS should take into account whether or not Congress will pass an amendment to clearly include federal exchanges in the subsidy program. It's not the role of the Court to fix drafting errors.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:51:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It seems to me Justice Scalia based his decisio... (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to me Justice Scalia based his decision on the Congresses Constitutinal ability to mandate what and what not the Court can rule on. He negated Marberry vs. Madison. All future legislation should keep this in mind when making law.

  •  "Religious liberty for workers" needs to (0+ / 0-)

    Be the rallying cry. Liberty for evil rich people only is what the evil SCOTUS adjudicates.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

  •  WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    If they can just "DO SOMETHING" about Supreme Court decisions, why the fuck haven't they turned to this "SOMETHING" sooner for other egregious decisions?

    •  Hobby Lobby is not a constitutional issue (5+ / 0-)
      If they can just "DO SOMETHING" about Supreme Court decisions, why the fuck haven't they turned to this "SOMETHING" sooner for other egregious decisions?
      The Hobby Lobby decision was based on a federal statute, the RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so it is possible for Congress to change the RFRA to meet the concerns of the Court. Note that the RFRA was an act passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support in response to a SCOTUS ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (plus another related case) in which Scalia wrote that Smith was ineligible to collect unemployment benefits after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which Smith used in a religious ceremony. Scalia's opinion stated that as long as the ban on peyote use was generally applicable to all citizens, the ban on peyote use in religious ceremonies was permissible.

      On the other hand, McCullen v. Coakley, the issue of the size and location of the buffer outside abortion clinics in Mass., was decided as a First Amendment issue last week. If the public wanted to nullify that ruling it would have to amend the Constitution. That is a very tall order and it is unlikely to be successful in today's partisan climate.

      Alcohol preserves everything ... except secrets.

      by august88 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:47:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hate to be a naysayer (0+ / 0-)

    but gop obstruction on this issue will not galvanize women of childbearing age to go to the polls for Democratic candidates. Most women eligible to vote between 18-40 or so don't have positive experiences with the government working to their benefit. They grew up post-Reagan not post- FDR/Johnson so they don't fully appreciate the good that good government can do for them. "Why vote? it does me no good. Restrictions on my life are the way it has always been."

  •  Tbe 5 Republicans on the SCOTUS voted for this ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueZone, EmmaLib

    Tbe 5 Republicans on the SCOTUS voted for this ... the 4 Democrats against. What "THE 5" really did was reate a class of people who are now above the laws others must abide by.

  •  Suspect the "something" they'll do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Says

    ...is use it for DSCC fundraising. :(

    America, we can do better than this...

    by Randomfactor on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Reid's quick action (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    I guess he'll know what it's like to have a bill stuffed in the bottom drawer when he sends this "DOA" to the House. I guess turnabout IS FairPlay

  •  Corporate Pricks. (0+ / 0-)

    Time to boycott

  •  interesting choice of words... (0+ / 0-)

    by Reid calling for a change in the Hobby Lobby legislation...I'm sure he means any upcoming legislative fix that could be put on the floor...but the only "legislation" extant right now is the Supremes legislating from the bench by our 5 man corporate junkies who had their most recent fix pretending their both the congress and executive branch rolled into one! They are treasonous shits!

  •  I have a closely held belief (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueZone

    that teapublicans have no place in our society, does that mean I can get rid of them all?

  •  Harry Reid promises a remedy. (0+ / 0-)

    He just doesn't know what it will be.

    Move along people, this is NOT a headline nor is it anything to hang our hats on.

    Another fail by the Dems.

  •  I know what I am going to say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet

    involves two totally different issues. I have no desire to offend people of faith. I am not Catholic so I may misuse the jargon as if I am trying to speak French learned from the original Pink Panther movies.

     It is late at night, I am sick to death of voter ignorance, the GOP, the SCOTUS, and everything, everything that they are doing to run this country into an abyss.

     Even voting won't get rid of most of them because of gerrymandering.

    I need therapy----people do not understand why I am so passionate, why I am so distressed. I just tell them they do not pay attention, and they do not know what they are getting for their votes (these are educated truly middle class people).

    Ahem.

    Hobby Lobby has the blessing  of the Five Holy Fathers on the court who know as much about the science and real  role of contraception in peoples' lives as any other priests do. Their decision anointed Hobby Lobby with the distinction of being the crack in the dam which is guaranteed to explode and wash away everything in its path.

    Hobby Lobby has the sincerely held belief that some birth control methods are abortifacients (they are not-science??Freedum!). The priests have granted a ban on those methods, lest the Lord (if he hasn't listened to the science either) smite them for signing a paper that allows the contraception to be provided without cost by some other means because...THERE IS A WAR ON RELIGION---OBAMA  IS A TYRANT! Who am I to question their craft products' sincerely held beliefs? The product inventory including the memory book stickers did not express their objection to the coverage when it was already a benefit on employees' policies before President Obama signed the ACA....

    If the law grants a ban on just a few little methods of contraception because a company has a sincerely held belief, but it does leave the  other 16 on the plan..(you sluts should be thanking US)........

    ............ there are a whole hell of a lot of actual persons who have strong, sincerely held objections of biblical proportions to guns designed to fire hundreds of bullets in rapid succession which actually kill and maim real living and breathing human beings (who are more developed than a zygote--confirmed by science, doncha' know).

    Just making a reduction in the number of bullets-not banning them outright --would allow gun lovers to retain their Second Amendment rights (a total ban would send the message that our beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of gun lovers, God forbid).

    If a corporation of crafting materials can object to and be granted a ban on contraception which the yarn and ink pads believe are causing abortions (which they aren't), then why in the name of sanity, can't REAL people object to and be granted a ban on high capacity gun magazines that actually, REALLY KILL PEOPLE...LOTS OF PEOPLE. And finally, just as prescriptions are written for individuals (for some birth control methods), in order to be safe for that individual for a specific  medical need , why wouldn't individual background checks be required for the safety of children, families, pregnant women, elderly people, people with disabilities....??

    I am listening to Chris Hayes on the Central American refugee children...Repubs blaming President...Liberty, lawless, dictator, freedum, Constitution, socialism, blah, blah, blah...STFU

    "The devil can quote Scripture to serve his own purposes."

    by SpringHopeCarolina on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:00:36 PM PDT

  •  Pathetic (0+ / 0-)

    I like that he's going to "do something", but we'll stop global scorching long before Reid can push legislation through Congress that would reverse the Hobby Lobby bobble. There's nothing that would reverse it that could conceivably pass the House.

    Frankly, I think Boehner has a better chance of winning his lawsuit against the President.

  •  Is that even viable? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, meinoregon
    The "something" they can do is as of yet unclear. It could be amending the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law underpinning the court's decision, to clarify that those rights are intended just for actual, individual humans and not corporations. 
    Wouldn't SCOTUS just declare the changes unconstitutional citing their earlier positions on corporate personhood?

    Wouldn't fixing that require a constitutional amendment?

    ------
    The Tea Party. When batshit just isn't crazy enough.

    by Alden on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:50:30 AM PDT

  •  We should file suit to stop our tax payments fr... (0+ / 0-)

    We should file suit to stop our tax payments from going to the military/industrial complex, because war is against our religious belief, using Hobby Lobby as the precedent.

  •  They do take our heathen money (0+ / 0-)

    without question.  

  •  Corporations are not people (0+ / 0-)

    Corporations are not people,
    Money isn't speech, and
    Campaign contributions are bribes.

    Any questions?

    Advocating for things that help the middle class, and against things that don't.

    by BaldEagle on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:45:00 PM PDT

  •  Until they change the balance of the court (0+ / 0-)

    We will only have partisan decisions, and personal beliefs used to make unconstitutional legal decisions such as Corporations are people, and now corporations have religious freedom to discriminate.

    They are own home grown terrorists from within, not working for we the people but against us.

  •  A "quick response" from Harry Reid? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Yada, yada, yada. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has fed Democrats this line of bullshit about taking swift action on liberal causes so many times before, he sounds like the little boy who cried "wolf." His intentions may be good, but we all know what the Road to Hell is paved with. The senator should start putting his money where his mouth is. Reid hasn't done anything "quickly" in decades. In fact, this old fart moves so slowly, he couldn't catch a fucking cold. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for good old Harry to deliver on his promise.

  •  Reid has a PLAN? (0+ / 0-)

    Reid is useless, spineless, ball-less.  He is weak, ineffectual, ineffective and lacks all sense of real leadership.  Frankly, I think he is a closet Republican playing like he is a Democrat.  MR. ZERO, one reason (Pelosi a second reason) I refuse to donate money to the Democrats.

  •  Harry Reid is pretty weak and ineffectual. Like so (0+ / 0-)

    many pols. I have never understood why the Dems are so afraid of the Repubs/Baggers, why they are so willing to roll over and play dead on cue? But not Elizabeth Warren. That's why she's so valuable to the cause.

  •  Make it legal for a woman... (0+ / 0-)

    ... to shoot any boss in the ass if he tries to deny her birth control See how many religious nuts are willing to put it on the line for their beliefs.

  •  Doesn't the GOP have anything better to do than (0+ / 0-)

    obsess on women and their rights?

  •  Simple solution that can be summed up in two words (0+ / 0-)

    Single Payer...

    There, Problem solved... Now can we move on to something else? Maybe restoring public infrastructure?

    Wall Street Reform?

    Anything?

    I can't help but feel that this isn't even a real issue, it is just a distraction to get our focus off of other important agendas, like eliminating the military-industrial complex.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site