The Supreme Court Enters the WAR on WOMEN

In the nine kinds of how stupid can you be, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby that…

“The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Obama’s healthcare law that requires companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

The court held on a 5-4 vote on ideological lines that such companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the healthcare law. The decision means employees of those companies will have to obtain certain forms of birth control from other sources.”

Excuse me? Separation of CHURCH AND STATE? Individual Rights?

“In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it a “decision of startling breadth” in which the “court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, can opt out of any law, saving only tax laws, they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” She said the ruling will leave thousands of women without the contraceptive coverage promised by the law. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined her dissent.”

This is a terrifying precedent to set and it MUST be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court of the land has now officially intruded on the RIGHTS OF WOMEN to have access to medical care.

It intrudes on the bedroom in every home in America:

“The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.”

It muddies the division between church and state and challenges religious freedom based on whose side of the corporate divide you happen to fall.

Well, HOBBY LOBBY, this customer votes with her wallet and refuses to ever purchase anything from this corporate entity. Stay out of my bedroom, stay out of my religious preference, my sexual orientation, stay out of my vagina. If you’re so hot to fuck something, I can produce a list of lobbyists who might suit very nicely.

10447418_10152294842418687_6815472379499547820_n

ADDENDUM: Implications for the LGBT community

ADDENDUM #2: Hobby Lobby Investment Hypocrisy

ADDENDUM #3: Here comes the anti-gay discrimination crew jumping on the Hobby Lobby bandwagon

ADDENDUM #4: CORPORATE THEOCRACY, read all about it.

ADDENDUM #5: The blistering dissent from Justice Ginsberg

10475958_814422325243426_4883663581214825502_o

 

About Nya Rawlyns

Nya Rawlyns doesn’t write typical romance. She writes emotion as a contact sport, rough and often raw. It need not be pleasant, heart-warming or forever after. What she seeks is what lies beneath—a dance of extremes, the intersect of need and desire, and the compromises we make when pain and pleasure become indistinguishable. ***** She has lived in the country and on a sailboat on the Chesapeake Bay, earned more than 1000 miles in competitive trail and endurance racing, taught Political Science to unwilling freshmen, and found an avocation in materials science. ***** When she isn’t tending to her garden or the horses, the cats, or three pervert parakeets, she can be found day dreaming and listening to the voices in her head.
This entry was posted in Blog, The Supreme Court Enters the WAR on WOMEN and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Supreme Court Enters the WAR on WOMEN

  1. mo883mpetersdesires says:

    I’ve refused to shop at Hobby Lobby for years now, ever since one came to our then-hometown in Florida and we walked in to be surrounded by all the religious stuff. Not that I mind that in general – in fact, I was most amused to shop there the first couple of times, buying objects with which we garnished our (very) Pagan altar, but when we heard what they wanted to do a la birth control and deciding who gets what coverage just because they happened to be women who worked for them, we swore off them, period. Same as Chick-Fil-A – we do not patronise them, either, but not because they embrace a subset of religion we do not, or hold opinions with which we do not agree, but because they USE THEIR PROFITS and their standing as a company to DENY OTHER PEOPLE THE SAME RIGHTS THEY ALREADY HAVE. It’s revolting and ridiculous. I think (and hope) we’ll see a vast backlash against this decision today in the months to come, and I also think that we’ll see lawsuits in the years to come that will overturn this revolting decision. I understand that it’s narrow – but you know what, that’s not good enough for me, not when it ‘narrowly’ takes away someone’s rights just because a bunch of CEOs decided that their Bible – not mine, theirs – told them they could do it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s