On the heels of the Monday SCOTUS ruling involving Hobby Lobby et al:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
Leftists, Progressives and Demorats all began their unanimous bleat about a so-called “war on women.”
It is, instead, a War on the American Taxpayer. In terms of making the American Taxpayer responsible for funding contraception for women who still have any number of free venues available to them for contraceptive solutions, to include Planned Parenthood and various clinics open in each and every college and university across the land.
The argument was predicated upon religion, yes. But I submit it was also foundationally (if not more so) predicated upon the mandatory payment, by businesses, of contraception for women. Not just for religious-based businesses but for all businesses. And: WHY should ANY business be forced to pay for contraception for any employee?
Male or female, Viagra or pill or diaphragm or condom, no business should be forced by government to pay for those contraceptive items. According to four justices, however, you cannot even opt out. Do they not understand that the federal government is not solving the nation’s problems?
That said, there was a second SCOTUS ruling that occurred on Monday, less revealed.
Harris v. Quinn, 5-4.
From the AP.org:
Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees
by Sam Hananel
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union’s costs of collective bargaining.
In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.
This sounds like a negative SEIU ruling, as affecting Fornicalia.
The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their bank accounts in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.
As in: what becomes the benefit in joining a so-called “union,” in terms of my bottom-line paycheck?
Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers “are different from full-fledged public employees” because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers.
If one more liberal Justice is appointed in this country, we will lose our social and political and personal freedoms in this country. And then woe, shall we be.