Sotomayor refuses to block morning-after pill rule

[TheWalrus]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday denied a request to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.

Hobby Lobby Stores and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government, claiming the mandate violates the religious beliefs of its owners.

In an opinion, Sotomayor said the stores fail to satisfy the demanding legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. She said the companies may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts.

Company officials say they must decide whether to violate their faith or face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if they ignore the law.

Attorneys for the government have said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In ruling against the companies last month, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton said churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions but that "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Statler Waldorf]

Emergency contraception? They're not contraception since conception has already taken place. Additionally, the only reason people can now say they don’t cause abortions is because they re-defined the word “pregnancy” a few years ago, whether or not they terminate a pregnancy is irrelevant, they still kill a human being and nobody should be forced to pay for or provide them.

[Locke]

Love it. They are separating the stores from the owner's religion. Thank you common sense...

[MoFinz]

Since the gun debate really should focus more on changing behaviors (treating the disease) than gun control (treating the symptom) maybe the contraceptive debate should take a similar turn. Treat the disease (using abortion as buyers remorse birth control) rather than treat the symptom (a pill that could actually be useful in cases of rape or incest).

Lets start acknowledging that our bad behaviors are treatable, and not sluffing off responsibilities because theyre inconvenient.

[Locke]

Since the gun debate really should focus more on changing behaviors (treating the disease) than gun control (treating the symptom) maybe the contraceptive debate should take a similar turn. Treat the disease (using abortion as buyers remorse birth control) rather than treat the symptom (a pill that could actually be useful in cases of rape or incest).

Lets start acknowledging that our bad behaviors are treatable, and not sluffing off responsibilities because theyre inconvenient.

If everyone has access to the pill, wouldn't abortion rates plummet? I feel like the only thing that could make the religious right happy is no one having sex, period...

[MoFinz]

If everyone has access to the pill, wouldn't abortion rates plummet? I feel like the only thing that could make the religious right happy is no one having sex, period...

Using that logic, wouldnt making sure access to a gun make crime go down? This has nothing to do with religion, it's about family values and their decline.

[spydertl79]

Emergency contraception? They're not contraception since conception has already taken place. Additionally, the only reason people can now say they don’t cause abortions is because they re-defined the word “pregnancy” a few years ago, whether or not they terminate a pregnancy is irrelevant, they still kill a human being and nobody should be forced to pay for or provide them.

This is a common misconception. Scientists are debating exactly why the pills work but have all but ruled out that the pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. We do know that these pills stop eggs from being released and therefore from being fertilized along with other physiological effects that make pregnancy less likely.

Do some research. I don't think that a fertilized egg is a human but in this debate it doesn't matter since any effects tha this drug would theoretically (as in never observed) have on a fertilized egg are much rarer than its contraceptive effects. The pill does a lot to inhibit conception and there is a push to have the "implantation" effects removed from the FDA description as the science is rapidly mounting against that even being a possibility because of the supposed long time it takes for endometrium cells to mutate in the way necessary to prevent implantation.

Fertilization can take up to 5 days after intercourse and almost never happens instantaneously as most people believe.

Although there tends to be a 200+ year lag time on Christians accepting scientific theories, hopefully you guys will research before wasting the Supreme Court's time in the future.

[jared81]

what a wise latina.

[Locke]

Using that logic, wouldnt making sure access to a gun make crime go down? This has nothing to do with religion, it's about family values and their decline.

What values? Sex before marriage? I think you're trying to assign your personal values to everyone else, and you can't do that...

[MoFinz]

What values? Sex before marriage? I think you're trying to assign your personal values to everyone else, and you can't do that...

So society can not have any values? It's all up to everyone as to what those values are? Sounds a little more like Anarchy to me. Where are the lines for the social contract?

I know we dont live in a perfect world, but i do believe if the Nuclear family still existed, if people were still accountable for their actions, we would all be in a much better place.

Just my opinion though.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

what a wise latina.

Go figure.....one woman who definitely has nothing to worry about as far as needing the pill.....she looks like the south bound end of a north bound mule