newest supreme court rulings
 

Maybe I'm just stirring the pot, but I'm curious about everyone's take on the two latest supreme court rulings.

Heres mine: The hobby lobby ruling I agree with not so much because I agree with hobby lobby, but it would set a dangerous precedence to rule otherwise. I think hobby lobby is essentially picking fly poop out of pepper with the contraception issue, and I think it is a red herring issue to begin with. There are so many cheap, over the counter contraceptives I don't know why it was ever an issue.

The union ruling: makes sense to me. Choose to join a union, pay dues andd enjoy the benefits. Don't want to join? Don't pay dues and duke it out on your own. There are still some rugged individualists who prefer that. No union, no perks.

Any thoughts?

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

AND might I add plenty of over the counter contraceptives that prevent fertilization COMPLETELY if that's your problem.

They were specifically against the morning after and other same-type of pills which cause a fertilized egg to be aborted. They've said many times they are not against other forms of birth control.

It's a great ruling, and a narrow one which applies only to the birth control mandate. They stated the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and I agree.

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

The Hobby Lobby ruling was a very narrow ruling, but it has very broad implications.

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

Interesting

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

It's not that great of a ruling. It simply is saying that publicly traded companies are not part of the analysis, which means it discourages religious business owners from going public. And finally, Hobby Lobby doesn't pay the mandate, but their taxes will continue to pay for contraceptive coverage.

Better than the alternative. Any ruling other than against HL is a good ruling.

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

Isn't the morning after pill what they give to rape victims at the hospital? I would be hard pressed not to agree to cover that under those conditions. I'd also like to believe that if they STILL had a problem with it, they would at least offer her some extra services or up her pay to help cover the fact that she'd have an extra mouth to feed through no fault of her own.

Re: newest supreme court rulings
 

Where did you get this info? I haven't read anything about either the publicly traded company part or that they will still be paying for it.

Just read SCOTUSBLOG and it seemed clear that they a) aren't required to offer it; and b) aren't having to pay any penalty or taxes for it.