Skip to main content


Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized a “very troubling” Supreme Court ruling today that lets some business owners opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover contraceptives for women workers.

“Bosses should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. This ruling is another attack on the rights of working people by the 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court,” said Sanders.

“At a time when tens of millions of women use birth control, there is no valid reason to restrict a woman’s access to safe, widely-used preventive services simply because her employer does not approve of what should be her private medical decisions. This ruling undermines the government’s interest in providing women access to preventive health care, including contraceptive coverage,” Sanders said.

Sanders had joined a group of senators in a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a   religious freedom law did not extend rights to for-profit corporations.

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

  •  Why is the Green family, the owners (89+ / 0-)

    of Hobby Lobby, entitled to this outragous protection for their personal religious views?  They are now free to withhold health care from women.  We got rid of oppressive royalists when we kicked the British  and their king out of America.  Now we have another set of entitled 'royalty' in the persons of the Green family who most of their employees do not even know.  Women and many others will not forget this gross miscarrige of justice and the corruption of the law by the male majority on the court.  Not one female justice supported this decision and infact vigorously opposed it as having far reaching negative impact on women and their right to decent health care.  Treating women like they are not capable of making intelligent health care choices for themselves will haunt the GOP, Tea-Kochers for the near and long term future.

    •  They are like roaches (25+ / 0-)

        The number of 'royalty-like" folks that own corporations will rapidly increase - because they can and because they hate the current POTUS....remember, this is the GOP / Heritage plan.

    •  I disagree (10+ / 0-)

      On our conservative, Utah website, most of the posters were applauding this decision.
      The comments posted there made me want to vomit, or reach out and slap some sense in to them.
      The site. Is KSL, and it is the Mormon church's mouthpiece.

      "Americans don't understand that terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution. Terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism."

      by snoopydawg on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:09:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  white male property owners. n/t (17+ / 0-)

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:23:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Birth control pills are a luxury (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Josiah Bartlett, kfunk937, NM Ray

      The right-wing and their talk radio supporters will applaud this decision as allowing religion to trump free-loaders who want their sexual freedom to be paid for by the rest of us.

      This won't change any minds.  At all.

      West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:04:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You do know, of course,... (3+ / 0-)

        ...that this is not about "standard" birth control pills but only about a small set of "morning after" medications and IUDs? This fact is central to the beliefs of the Green family. This is not a bunch of Catholics getting their panties in a bunch about standard birth control pills or condoms because some old guys in the Vatican pass down decrees decrying the use of same.

        I very much doubt that the Green family is doing this to "free load". They know the monetary cost to them is minimal. In fact, denying coverage for "morning after" contraception and IUDs may increase their insurance costs as insurance companies know they can buy a lot of such contraceptives for the medical costs of one pregnancy - a small percent of which become "million dollar babies" due to being premature.

        I don't agree with the Greens, but the decision seems to follow the statutory law well. I'm not a religious person, but I think it's narrow minded and insulting to dismiss their views as "monetary" rather than heartfelt. I appreciate the fact we are a nation of laws and we follow those rather than random rantings on blogs and comment boards.

        Change the law and the problem will be solved. Get a majority in the House, retain the Administration and the Senate, and eliminate the filibuster --  the necessary changes should then be trivial and quick. Elections, Consequences, and all that. Of course, this site's stated goal is to get Democrats elected, preferably progressives, but if not, just members of the Democratic Party -- so there might be some surprises still.

        I think all it needs is a small amendment to the RFRA. But there are many ways to skin the cat here with varying degrees of difficulty and scope. For example, changing the Dictionary Act to indicate that "persons" does NOT refer to associations or corporations would fix this and change a lot of other laws along the way -- but would probably be hard to pass.

        I don't see a "right" to birth control paid for by someone else. If there were, it seems everyone would have had it decades ago (there have been periods where Democrats controlled the whole show) for no cost and I don't recall a single SCOTUS cert petition appealing a case that claimed it such a right. The PPACA couldn't create any new Constitutional rights (the Constitution wasn't changed to enact it).

        Is there a "right" to use birth control? I think so (but even that seems entrapped in the vagaries of the FDA regulatory process which delays and restricts that right), just as there is a right to read whatever you want but no right to require someone else to provide the reading material of your choice to you so you can read it.

        •  You are very foolish to say (9+ / 0-)


          I don't see a "right" to birth control paid for by someone else. If there were, it seems everyone would have had it decades ago
          First, if you're a guy, then you might be 50% responsible for the pregnancy. So tough cookies, ladies, us men say you have to pay for that yourself!

          I find your attitude disgusting. HR worthy comment, in the context of this decision.

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:56:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Birth control has long been seen as legitimate (16+ / 0-)

            health care when properly prescribed and used by the medical community, and seeing as that the law now states that everyone has a right to health care, everyone who legitimately need birth control has a legal right to it. The fact that some uptight shitbags have a problem with health care that is associated with sex and reproduction and other such icky things should be their problem, not ours. Unfortunately, the Vagina Demagogues are among those who have a problem with sex and reproduction, and they have now weighed in.

            A bunch of uptight male prudes who live in the early 19th century can impose their Old Testament views on over 300 million people (while reserving the right to have others pay to make their dicks hard, because, well, that's just different). If this isn't proof that we live in a theocracy, I don't know what is.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:51:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just because... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I have the right to do something, doesn't necessarily give you or my employer an obligation to provide it to me.

            For example, I have the right to drink alcohol, yet my employer has no obligation to provide alcohol to me. The Federal government could enact legislation that required employers to provide, on request, 1 oz of "potable" alcohol to each employee for every eight hours worked (after all, there is some evidence that alcohol, in moderation, may have certain health benefits). A devote Muslim business owner would likely be protected from having to comply with this law due to the RFRA.

            I think your beef is with the RFRA -- in which case work to get it repealed.

            This was a statutory law interpretation decision, not one based on constitutional principles -- so it's trivial to overcome via the democratic process (changing the Constitution is, of course, possible but would be harder).

            •  Come on. (0+ / 0-)

              We are talking about healthcare that's considered necessary. Alcohol's not on the list.

              Where's the big court case over Viagra?  

              A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

              by onionjim on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 02:28:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think you understood the comment (15+ / 0-)

          you were replying to, especially the part about "freeloaders".

          I don't see a "right" to birth control paid for by someone else. If there were, it seems everyone would have had it decades ago
          This is actually a RW talking point.  The ACA says that people have a right to health insurance.  It further says that health insurance must cover a certain list of basic services and products.  Conservatives like to muddy the waters on this, particularly when claiming their tax dollars are paying for it, which is crap.

          Birth control is an integral part of women's health care in the same way that mammograms are.  Private employers don't get to start carving out pieces of the ACA they don't like for religious reasons and denying them to employees.

          By the way, these employees also pay a portion of the cost of their health insurance.  By forcing the insurance company to remove parts of the coverage, they are forcing employees to pay for lesser coverage.  If I worked for Hobby Lobby, I would be forced to pay for insurance that did not meet my needs even though I have no religious objection at all to those products.

          just as there is a right to read whatever you want but no right to require someone else to provide the reading material of your choice to you so you can read it.
          Actually, the government does mandate certain reading materials in the workplace, and those reading materials must say specific things.  Imagine if some business decided they didn't want to include certain language in an OSHA notice because of their religious beliefs.  Your arguments do not take into account that the ACA is the law of the land, and that there are federal mandates for these things.  
          •  I wish someone who knows (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, shaharazade, cjtjc, Yonit, Clues

            the ins and outs of the law would write up an easy to follow detail 'paper' on how the employees of Hobby Lobby - and any other corporation with owners who worship profits and stiff employees on basic health coverage - can get their fully compliant health care coverage on the exchange(s) rather than from the discriminatory employer. Many probably qualify for subsidies as well. Male employees too, family coverage needs to cover their wives' health care adequately.

            Hobby Lobby would be fined for each and every employee who gets their insurance from the exchange instead of from the company. Then we'll see just how 'religious' these people are and whether they're willing to take a significant profits hit. And no, I don't think they can [legally] fire any employee who seeks adequate health insurance through the government because HL's offered plan is inadequate for their needs.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:03:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They can't really (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              There are a number of people who are not allowed to get subsidies for healthcare on the exchanges.  If your employer has an ACA compliant plan, you can't get a subsidy.  

              I think the problem is that the supreme court has just declared plans without contraceptive coverage to be compliant.

              •  Deal is, Hobby Lobby's plan (0+ / 0-)

                is not ACA compliant. All their employees who want compliant coverage will have to be accommodated elsewhere (like the government, per Alito). Might as well go with the exchange, and by all rights they should get any subsidies they qualify for per income.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:27:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  BTW, a special exemption (0+ / 0-)

                is not equivalent to compliance. It's just a special exemption. The ruling was that HL didn't HAVE to comply, due to the owner's religious beliefs. I don't think they ruled that non-compliant plans are now compliant.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:30:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Ditto for HIPPA guidelines for healthcare and (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, cjtjc, qofdisks

            other providers.  Why don't we allow each denomination and sect in the land to write their own rules.  That would be true freedom.  AND TOTAL ANARCHY.  

            •  Or... (0+ / 0-)

              ...we could just strike down or amend the RFRA to reduce its scope using the democratic legislative process.

              Again, this was NOT a decision based on Constitutional grounds (free exercise clause of the First Amendment), it was a decision based on conflicts between statutes and regulations. If the RFRA didn't exist, this case would never been brought to the court.

              Simply repealing the RFRA would neuter the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision (and probably a number of other court decisions). (There might be some lingering verbiage in the SCOTUS decision that could be used as precedent in other relatively unrelated future cases - but that's often the case).

          •  Actually, I don't know that... (0+ / 0-)

            ...anyone has challenged any wording in an OSHA notice on the grounds of the RFRA. That might be because I don't recall any such wording I've ever seen that would raise religious objections or it might be because no one cares that much or has bothered to pursue it.

            However, I'm pretty sure that if some RW religious nut were in control of OSHA and OSHA mandated that the phrase "Jesus, son of God, is our savior - consider what he would do before operating a piece of equipment that could injure another of God's children" (sorry, I'm not religious so I don't know if that would even make sense to a religious nut job - but you get my idea), there would be a quick and successful RFRA challenge.

            The RFRA is also the law of the land and has been for almost 20 years longer than the PPACA. Obviously the legislators, no matter what you imagine, didn't expect the PPACA to override the RFRA (else, they would have also modified the RFRA to exempt provisions of the PPACA from being governed by the RFRA).

            •  Well the analogy was skewed to begin with (0+ / 0-)

              But here's another try at it.  The government mandates that employers present employees with certain specified OSHA notices.  If an employer disagrees and prefers to put this up instead:

              Jesus keep us safe from all accidents in our workplace, amen.

              I think that would be a problem.  

              The original analogy about reading matter was really flawed though.  It didn't match the situation under discussion at all.

              •  Maybe that reg would be allowed... (0+ / 0-)

       it might be the "least restrictive way", WRT religious objections, for the government to achieve their compelling goal of making sure employees are aware of safety regs/requirements etc. and have such information readily available. Hard to say of course.

                That's where HHS sort of shot themselves in the foot on this case -- they actually had a less restrictive solution for religious organizations but didn't apply the same to commercial entities.

          •  BTW, I forgot to add to my prior response. (0+ / 0-)

            I don't recall that the PPACA (the law) actually mandates specific forms of birth control be made available. I believe it's the regulators that were left with that decision of determining the list of essential health services. If so, we have a conflict of statutory law (RFRA) with HHS regulations -- statutory law generally takes precedence (and should) in such cases. Again, I've not looked at this aspect in a long time so my recollection of where the specific birth control methods are mandated may be incorrect.

        •  I think you're too trusting of the motive. (16+ / 0-)
          You do know, of course,... (1+ / 0-)
          ...that this is not about "standard" birth control pills but only about a small set of "morning after" medications and IUDs? This fact is central to the beliefs of the Green family
          IIRC, the Greens provided coverage for all modes of conception prior to the passage of the ACA. Ya know, back before the crazies began looking for ways to sabotage the success of the ACA.

          What other parts of your private life would you like your employer to control? Where you go? What you eat? Who you marry? What car you drive? What books you read? What religion, or lack of? This decision creates a major slippery slope that goes far beyond the "central beliefs" of the Green family or any other employer. Sounds like another step toward indentured servitude.

          •  Oops!! Make that contraception. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maryabein, fugwb, Smoh, Yonit
          •  If they were previously knowingly providing... (0+ / 0-)

            ...coverage for "morning after" birth control, I agree that would be telling. Although, it's possible they hadn't even thought of this aspect until the PPACA controversy raised it to their awareness. Or, maybe they reexamined their religious views on this aspect once compelled to offer such coverage - people regularly change their religious interpretations and beliefs (that's why much of the religious infrastructure exists - to cause people to do exactly that). If we were all stuck to the religious beliefs we were born with, there would be no religion (upon exiting the womb, I'm not aware of evidence that anyone that has specific religious beliefs).

            I don't expect my employer to control any non-job related aspect of my personal life in a specific way unless it affects my job performance in some way. (Although, obviously, by not paying me $100M a year, they DO control my ability to own my own fleet of Lear jets). However, I don't expect them to provide me with personal services that they find offensive.

            I probably would never go to work for a company that said (as Hobby Lobby does) on their web page:

            We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
            but, if I did, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they behaved in a way consistent with their religious beliefs.

            Hobby Lobby has, to my knowledge, ever asserted that employees could not use their wages to buy morning after birth control, pornography, or instruments related to Wiccan religious worship.

        •  "Heartfelt"? (14+ / 0-)

          Racists, misogynists and homophobes are often "heartfelt" in their beliefs. So are Jihadis and and skinheads. I suppose that we should respect and honor their beliefs too seeing as they're so "heartfelt".

          Or, maybe we should just respectfully tell bigots to shove their "heartfelt" hatred up their bigoted fat asses and stop trying to impose it on the rest of us.

          I have zero respect for these uptight asswipes and their "heartfelt" beliefs.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:45:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Educate yourself before trying to troll us. Tha... (13+ / 0-)

          Educate yourself before trying to troll us. Thanks to the decision yesterday you and I will be paying for birth control for HL employees.

          Last I checked employer provided healthcare was not free. You have to actually work to get it (it's part of your compensation.) Employees also have to pay most of if not all of the premium.

          What is this free ride of which you speak? Why is a man's vasectomy covered by his own "free ride" insurance but now a woman's contraception has to be covered by the taxpayer?

          Do you know why vaccines are "free?" It's so that little boys don't come down with a high enough fever to render them sterile. At this moment I'm feeling that the Darwin Awards should be turned into a sincerely held religious belief.

          •  If the government... (0+ / 0-)

            ...decides by the democratic or regulatory process, the government will end up paying for some forms of birth control for some HB employees. I assume they already do so for individuals covered by Medicaid - so that would not be a new concept.

            Or, that the democratic process can be used to repeal the RFRA -- problem solved. Or, there are any number of other options the government could pursue to comply with the whole of all Federal laws.

            (Yes, there may be a subsequent 'free exercise' clause challenge, but that's a bridge to cross if, and when, we come to it).

        •  No cost???? (14+ / 0-)

          Really???  Paying for insurance is "no cost."???  

          And if getting pregnant is a danger to a women's health, that is not health care?   Surely in your life you have know women whose very health was compromised by pregnancy.  I have known several, two in my own family.  I am sure many here can tell you the same thing.

          So please end the lecture about rights.

          As for the "Green" family, if their beliefs are so "heartfelt" why does the majority of their inventory come from a country that uses abortion as birth control, that employs children and uses cheap labor that often forces workers to live in horrid conditions, work long hours for low wages.  If that makes them Christian, then they ought to be worshipping every despot in the world, since they are so willing to support them to make money while depriving women of their rights.

          “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

          by Jjc2006 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:13:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ditto X2. This has gotta be the easiest argumen... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Ditto X2.

            This has gotta be the easiest argument to make and win the fight.

            Please proceed ... RWNJs

          •  I'm an... (0+ / 0-)

            ...atheist (pending any scientific, falsifiable, evidence that changes my mind). Therefore, I don't pass judgement on other's religious beliefs (beyond the observation there's no support for any of them).

            A lot of carnage has occurred in the name of Christianity, so I really don't know why I would assume it was inconsistent with Christian beliefs to have suppliers' foreign workers working long hours - esp. if the alternative was these workers living in a disease ridden rural farm environment in extreme poverty w/o running water or any realistic path to improve their lives.

            •  Oh please..... (0+ / 0-)

              do not give me the old libertarian, right wing nonsense of

              have suppliers' foreign workers working long hours - esp. if the alternative was these workers living in a disease ridden rural farm environment in extreme poverty w/o running water or any realistic path to improve their lives..
               I CALL BS right wing talking point on you.  Go to "red state" and they will  cheer you on.

              As for Christianity, it does not take a practicing Christian to know history.   While Christianity after the "divine", in their minds, namesake was brutal, distorted from the message, the message of historical Jesus of Nazareth, the man has been studied and was pretty clear.  Fair wages, fair treatment.....and rebel against governance that demands the right to treat citizens badly. Hobby Lobby supporting despots while claiming to follow Christ is hypocrisy plain and simple.  The same could be said of the right wing Americans (using Christianity as well) who supported the overthrow of fairly elected leaders in Chile, Nicaragua and other Central American countries in order to maintain slave labor/poorly paid anti union labor for the corporations.  

              Defending the right of governments or companies to cheat, denigrate, and abuse labor is libertarian stupidity whether you are atheist or any religion.

              “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

              by Jjc2006 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:48:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  They are authoritarian (7+ / 0-)

          People incorporate their business to remove certain liabilities from them personally. Now they have it both ways. The owners can use corporate status to shield them and fail to comply with federal law, as religious persons. Louise Slaughter, one of the co-sponsors of RFRA, said Alito got it all wrong on the intent.
          No surprise, they get the outcome they want by twisting the law.

          The majority on the SCOTUS let their religious beliefs influence their judicial reasoning.  They are not worthy of respect. Just another American institution under the wrecking ball.

          It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

          by Desert Rose on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:15:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, probably... (0+ / 0-)

            ...the same reason Kos Media, LLC is incorporated - to help shield the owners from liability. Yet I'm pretty sure the entity "Kos Media, LLC" would assert they enjoy rights enumerated in the First Amendment. I assume you would disagree because they are a Corporation, not a natural person?

            However, the Dictionary Act (which has no direct bearing on interpretation of Constitutional rights as it is just a statute) is clear that Corporations for the purpose of the RFRA are "persons" (just as the word "he" in statutes is assumed to also include females unless otherwise noted).

            The RFRA is a "feel good" law -- it's very broad and that is likely why it passed with overwhelming support. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike voted for it - it was unanimous in the House and passed 97-3 in the Senate. It was supported by the ACLU and the conservative Traditional Values Coalition. Everyone who voted for it or sponsored it may have had a somewhat different reason for doing so. Smart ones who might have preferred it be narrowly tailored would have been keenly aware it was not but perhaps believed that to protect their favored views from incursion, it was right, or at least necessary, to protect other's as well. The view of individuals who voted for the bill is of little consequence.

            If Slaughter wanted the RFRA to be interpreted narrowly, why didn't she insist it be so tailored before jumping on the cosponsor bandwagon? Perhaps if narrowly tailored it would not have passed Constitutional challenge? Perhaps if narrowly tailored it wouldn't have passed Congress? Who knows? Bottom line is, it is whatever it says in the black letters on the white paper.

            I actually believe the RFRA is unconstitutional and agree with Steven's concurrence in BOERNE, PETITIONER v. P. F. FLORES and I hope it will be struck down some day (which would sweep aside the Hobby Lobby decision also). However my hopes are not high as we live in a society and judicial environment which allows "in God we trust" to remain on our currency, "One nation under God" (fairly recently added to our Pledge of Allegiance) to be parroted in some public schools during school hours by impressionability children who are forced to attend, and the Supreme Court Justices sit under prominent religious symbols (okay if it was a government museum displaying a historically significant piece of artwork that happened to be religious in nature - not okay when plaintiffs and defendants must argue their cases to the court of last resort shadowed by it).

        •  It is not about Monetary vs Heartfelt, I think. (6+ / 0-)

          It is about separation of Church and State. It's about never again allowing a Government (which in this case translates as the United Dollars of Rich WHITE MEN) or Religious entity from having the power to control average folks like you and me.  

          If the rich white men get to start imposing on the rest of us this way legally, it is only going to escalate. You can expect big business to start regulating what they can wear, what they can eat, where they can go.  In some cases Women will be covered in the Hobby Lobby Burka in order to feed their families, and in other cases you'll get Hooters. Or Women in short skirts and high heals as airline stewardesses again.  Because of heartfelt religious beliefs, of course, that women should be ladylike. Or not.

          Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to Hobby Lobby.

        •  Nothing is off the table to attack us (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, Yonit, qofdisks

          working people.

          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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:04:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The I suggest people visit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Get a majority in the House,
          Lawrence Lessig's Mayday PAC and contribute a lot of $$$ here MayDay PAC
        •  Insurance companies provide these free. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          All birth control means are free because pregnancy is expensive for them.


          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

          by waterstreet2013 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:12:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Viagra and Cialis are Healthcare Necessities (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, msdrown

        And, Jesus said, "Let the Men Stand Up and be Erect!"

        2nd Samuel (Alito)

        If Money is Speech, Speech isn't Free! I wonder what it is about that that Antonin Scalia cannot understand?

        by NM Ray on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:42:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, it will... (6+ / 0-)

        It will change the minds of women who now have to pay for birth control out of pocket, which, in working America, can really cut into a woman's budget. The right wing propaganda machine can spin it all they want. When it comes to money issues, propaganda has much less of an impact. All the rhetoric in the world won't pay for an IUD, and working women know this. For them, it isn't about religion. It's about what's left in my wallet after the bills are paid.

        In a way, I like this decision because we need to understand what conservatism means in 2014. We need to understand what it means to elect Republicans to Congress and the White House.

        If you voted for Reagan or either of the two Bushes, this is what you voted for. Voting Republican has its own unique consequences.

        For all you women who voted Republican and now wonder what happened to your reproductive rights, you have only your vote to answer your question.

        For all you men who voted Republican, you now have to answer for your convictions with some kind of lofty, esoteric explanation for why you expected good things to come from supporting fascists in the Supreme Court. Oh. And one other thing, men. I hope you understand that your options have just narrowed considerably if you like heterosexual activity yet don't want any more kids. Enjoy.

  •  Hobby Lobby OK's the Manufacture Of Plan B..... (61+ / 0-)

    Their retirement package include Teva Pharaceuticals which make Plan B.  They are also invested in other companies making intrauterine devices.  

    The hypocrisy apparently didn't matter to the 5 male members of the SC......the same guys who have a free speech buffer zone which they took away from women seeking a constitutionally protected abortion.

    Apparently constitutional protection of religion trumps the constitutional protection of abortion......@ least as far as the male mumbo jumbo SC justices are concerned.  

    The back lash has just started.  Boycott Hobby Lobby!

    •  Thanks for your first comment, Firenewt. (10+ / 0-)

      Right you are.

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Shop Kos Katalogue ❧ Help Okiciyap at Cheyenne River reservation.

      by belinda ridgewood on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:09:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and I'm seeing calls for boycotts of etsy (7+ / 0-)

      sellers sourcing product from HL, as well. Expands the activist pressure beyond Hobby Lobby itself, and perhaps includes a wider pool than those who craft themselves (I just don't get crafting, anyway).


      Good idea.

      •  I'd like to see all of us reluctantly flaming h... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eru, Smoh, msdrown, Yonit

        I'd like to see all of us reluctantly flaming hetero women boycott all men for a good spell. If half of all women went on strike in the bedroom, laundry room, and kitchen we'd see men move mountains to fix their fuck ups against our human rights.

      •  Also seeing calls for boycotting (10+ / 0-)

        Eden Foods, an organic food company, which is currently seeking what I guess will now be called the Hobby Lobby exemption.

        Eden Foods stands to take a much bigger hit from a boycott than Hobby Lobby will. Their customer base is far more likely to disagree with them than Hobby Lobby's. I'd never even heard of Hobby Lobby before the lawsuit, but Eden Foods products are distributed nationally in both natural-foods stores and conventional markets. Their marketing is designed to appeal to liberals, and I have bought their products on numerous occasions.

        No more.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:59:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is really a shame too. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, cjtjc, Yonit, papercut, qofdisks

      I've been working in theater and film since 1993 in and about the Sacramento area. This is a conservative area, and there just are not that many craft stores in which to buy supplies to make props for musical theater.

      I had be pining for an alternative to Michaels or Jo Anns fabrics, which have never been all that imaginative in terms of their inventory, and now just really stink.

      I don't need craft kits designed so that the maker can't screw it up, and it can only come out one way. I need pieces in bulk that I can turn into the 20 branding iron dance canes needed for the chorus of Will Rodgers follies. They cannot be metal because they would be too heavy( and too noisy) for the ladies to dance with, and they cannot fall apart when they tap them on the floor, which they do. And all of the "Brands" need to be the identical Will Rodgers Follies log for the show.

      I was really excited to find that a new competitive source for materials had opened in this area.

      I will never set foot in that store to find out if they would have been helpful. I would rather get something on line from Dick Blick, Or anywhere else, and pay overnight shipping.

      I think I am going to have to make an anti Hobby Lobby T-shirt for work. The students will ask about it, and I will be able to explain why not purchase from people who would like to see you buy the sparkles for your Burka at their store.

      •  try PVC pipe for the canes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  Thank You. (0+ / 0-)

          That actually happened some years ago.
          I did in fact use pvc pipe in a heavy enough weight not to flex, and then used 1/2" pvc sheet for the "brand, the business end of the branding iron. I made a jig of the logo and used a root zip with a cut off blade to cut out a bunch of the logos. It worked well enough at the time.

          I didn't have the skill to weld something up at the time, and I didn't have the time or the budget to carve and cast something out of resin, which is what I would do now. Casting supplies are expensive at Tap, which had a corner on the market in such a small community. At this point I'd overnight stuff from Dick Blick and do the job right.

          The one thing I will never do, is buy anything from Hobby Lobby. And I will take pleasure in every dollar I deny them.

          At any rate thank you for the good suggestion. And I have gone off on a tangent from the diary long enough.

  •  The last sentence... (21+ / 0-)

    in the Senator's statement is the most important one, I think.

    Does our government still have an interest in providing access to preventive health care for women?

    •  At the rate SCOTUS and Congress... (9+ / 0-)

      ... have taken away bits and pieces of women's rights since Roe v. Wade was decided, I'd have to say 'No, they are not the least bit interested in providing access to preventive health care for women.  They are far more interested in keeping the religious reichwingnuts pacified by giving them special privileges - even that idiotic, unconstitutional, and illegal 'office of faith-based initiatives which Dumbya created - which keeps them from screaming that their fucking religious freedumbs are being taken away.'

      The pontificating patriarchal claptrap that's been spouted (occasionally by Dems, even women) tells me most think women should be silent, barefoot, and pregnant (and preferably give birth to males, educate them poorly and without any critical thinking skills so they can join the military in the future and die for their country in illegal and unconstitutional wars based on lies for oil).

      Justice is NOT blind.  She has a blindfold on, and She wears it either willingly or by coercion.  Someone needs to remove that blindfold.

      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 Jun 30, 2014 at 09:37:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Women can vote. (0+ / 0-)

        And this is, among other things, a pocketbook issue.

        If women don't ditch the GOP over this series of insults, then we may as well have an institutional theocracy run by clerics. We have an election coming up in a few months. We have the Senate at stake. The House at stake.

        NOW we know what it means to have the GOP rule in government. It means a fascist Supreme Court. It means that corporations have more rights than citizens. And now we have concrete proof if we ever wanted it.

        Voting was never more important. If you don't get out and vote, then don't complain when the shit hits YOUR fan.

        •  It won't hit my personal fan (0+ / 0-)

          I'm 68.  However, I have relatives and friends of child-bearing age and it will most definitely affect them.

          For me the issue is: we had the pill first and we fought this battle and won to have abortion rights as a valid choice; I'm in the grandmother and gr-grandmother generation of women who have grown up thinking they had the same rights we fought to get.

          The growing dread and dismay I've felt thorough the years hits every nerve as bits and pieces of rights we fought so damned hard to get are being eroded and eroded until there are barely any left, and of those there are now, conditions and waiting periods and assorted other nonsense come with the whole package of responsible choices (trans-vaginal ultrasounds or ultrasounds that must be performed by legal regulation if a woman seeks an abortion..., seriously flawed idea).

          My idea?  Take away all ridiculous "laws" regarding both birth control and abortion and let any of those things be the medical decision of a woman it affects: birth control form of her choice according to her health (she might not opt for a diaphragm if she's allergic to latex; might not be able to use The Pill if she's allergic to any ingredients; might have to take The Pill if she has medical conditions that warrant some kind of regulation by The Pill..., etc.).

          Abortion on demand.  If someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to opt for it..., but a 12-year old who is pregnant because of rape and/or incest is in no physical condition to safely deliver a full-term fetus; it could kill her.

          My maternal grandmother died after carrying a dead fetus inside her for three months when she developed pre-eclampsia in her sixth month of pregnancy.  Her body didn't release whatever hormones are necessary to abort a dead fetus, and the doctor did not do surgery to take the dead fetus out.  I have a copy of her death certificate including the note on the reverse side, and the doctor noted the fetus died in March (she died 26 May after she went into labor, emergency surgery was done to remove the dead fetus 'of six months gestation,' but she died a painful death anyway), and he seems genuinely baffled because her body didn't expel the dead fetus..., but he does nothing to get it out, either.  It couldn't be called an "abortion" to remove an already-dead fetus, but whatever it is called, my grandmother's death in 1938 left five children motherless and was totally unnecessary.

          Ergo, whether by choice or medical necessity, abortion on demand.

          I know.  It's all too simple.  Religious nonsense imposed on Cretinous Congress Critters who are scared to death of these ignorant reichwingnuts is taking us back to the willful stupidity involved when we hung witches on false charges.

          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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 02:15:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Don't let your head explode! (8+ / 0-)

    Take action. It's the only way.

    People act on the outside how they feel on the inside. If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

    by Raggedy Ann on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:07:21 PM PDT

  •  Don McCanne with PNHP reminds us "If we had (27+ / 0-)

    Single Payer Universal Healthcare employers wouldn't be in the picture".

    I wish Bernie would have brought that up today. It is ridiculous the hoops we have to jump through in this country to get decent medical care.

    •  Single payer is coming (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peacestpete, Only Needs a Beat, Yonit

      we have to continually work at getting us there and the ACA is simply the first step in what's going to be a long process. VOTE to reduce the power of the radical right that has overtaken Congress and give the President room to make more advances in that direction. If you actually READ the majority decision, you'll find Justice Alito, dimwittedly making just such an argument:

       Says Alito, "The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections."
       - See more at:

      •  The SCOTUS is painting itself into a corner (0+ / 0-)

        The "narrow ruling" will invite appeals to the Supreme Court by every corporation seeking yet another "narrow ruling." The process will beg for a general ruling which the Supremes will eventually make. They've now set themselves up to be arbiter on every "narrow" ruling involving religious rights if they don't back down from their interventionism.

        Traditionally the Supreme Court deals with general, principled rulings that interpret laws as constitutional or not. But since Bush v. Gore, they've become something entirely different. They seem to feel emboldened to rule on every whim that sticks into their craw, from closing down the Florida Supreme Court to Citizens United and now, to this latest onrush of the short-sighted and foolish.

        Those who know the Constitution can point to the duty of Congress to REGULATE the parameters in which the Supreme Court operates. But doing so ignores the fact that this Congress refuses to wipe its own collective butt. So let's not expect Congress to exercise its duty, since it can't even stay in session for three consecutive days without fretting about the next recess. This refusal to act assures us that the Supreme Court's fascists will continue to run roughshod over our rights in favor of corporate "freedoms."

  •  Bernie Sanders is the Cat's Meow (9+ / 0-)

    As an ailurophile, I say that with the highest respect.


    My favorite SCOTUS is the bees' knees: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Of decisions that have come down for the last few years, she's the only one who has any consistent ethical and moral standards, and the only one who has followed the Constitution and settled law.  She's the only one who had quotable quotes regarding this latest travesty of "justice" from what I have read so far.

    Of the other quotes I've read about this decision, Sotomayor, another Catholic, and Kagan didn't impress me with anything memorable (so far).  One or both worked for corporations before getting more lucrative positions of power.  Five of the men who discriminated against women in this latest unspeakable misogynistic decision are also Catholics.  Gee, "men," thanks for imposing your patriarchal religious views on women via this idiocy.  I'd like to hold the door for you with a 'good riddance' message as you retire and exit the court.

    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 Jun 30, 2014 at 09:23:02 PM PDT

  •  I would love to see Hobby Lobby sued (7+ / 0-)

    By a woman who works for them who is unable to have hormonal birth control and must rely on the IUD.  

    Or even better, by an Orthodox Jewish woman (whom I doubt would work for HL in the first place), who is prescribed one of the 4 methods of BC by her doctor. (For b/g, Orthodox Judaism rules that condoms are not OK... which is a whole other discussion).

    Then it would be a genuine health case vs Religion or even Religion vs. Religion.

    "If you don't stick to your values when tested, they're not values! They're hobbies" - Jon Stewart

    by LivingOxymoron on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:47:16 PM PDT

    •  Corporation wins (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sherri in TX, msdrown, qofdisks

      People no longer have any rights.  The religious rights of the corporation trump those of the person.  Case closed.

    •  On what grounds? (0+ / 0-)

      It seems this case closes that door for now. Perhaps there's other legislation I don't recall though.

      The fact you have a right to do something (such as use of morning after birth control) does not mean that someone else (employer, government, neighbor, friend) has a requirement to provide it to you.

      Even with the PPACA in its full glory, there are any number of medical treatments that are not required to be accessible. This is true not only of the PPACA but every single payer system in the world.

      Seriously, does a KKK member who has every right to wear a stupid white sheet also have the right to demand that their employer provide one to them, launder it (do they do that?), and replace it when it gets burn marks on it? NO.

      Plug your least and most favorite rights into the prior paragraph as necessary.

      •  you are mistaken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the PPACA says exactly that: that for-profit employers above a certain size must provide insurance that covers contraceptives at no additional cost.  That's what the whole freaking lawsuit was about, WillR.

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:54:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, in this case... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that was effectively struck down about a day ago. In a case like this, it's as dead as laws that may still be on the books in some county that outlaw extramarital sex.

          Anyway, I was using the term "right" to refer to just that, not "laws". Sorry if the context wasn't obvious (I thought the examples and the use of the word "right" instead of "law" or "regulation" would make that obvious).

      •  Plugging in your disapproved(least) and approved (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        (most favorite) rights:  Isn't that exactly what Hobby Lobby was doing?  Giving large companies and corporations line item veto power over federal laws and regulations is absurd.  Or do we now have a 4th branch of government:  Business and property owners(property including real estate and chattel [employees].

        •  Yes, Hobby Lobby plugged in their... (0+ / 0-)

          ...likes and dislikes, coupled with the law (the RFRA and Dictionary Act).

          Obviously if they were pro-choice activists, they would have been unlikely to assert the same claim (and, the RFRA probably wouldn't have supported them if they had because their opposition to abortion for the purposes of employee insurance would have been unlikely to be considered sincere).

          But, that's the thing about rights. You get to pick and choose which ones you exercise and which "side" you pick to exercise them from.

          Business and property owners are not a "4th branch" of government - that's hyperbole. The fact they have some protections from government doesn't mean they are a branch of government. Is a pet dog a branch of government because they enjoy some government protections from animal abuse, how about a Lanai Tree snail because it enjoys some protection as an endangered species?

          How different the rhetoric would be here on DK if the PPACA had been passed by right wing lawmakers and included a provision that compelled companies to pay for "pro life counseling" for their employees. If such a provision had been overturned based on identical legal argument (having been challenged by a business owner who had a sincere, and well documented, religious belief that abortions were appropriate), there would be great rejoicing and not claims it was establishing a 4th branch of government et al.

    •  I'd like to see someone pursue (9+ / 0-)

      the issue of unequal treatment and pay for female vs. male employees.  They have just removed part of the female employees' compensation.

  •  I would like to hear a statement from an HL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    female employee, anonymously, of course.

  •  Were employees who would have been affected (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots, qofdisks

    by this decision at all represented in this case, or was it purely between a corporation and the government? And now that the ruling has been handed down, could employees who believe that they've been wronged by it bring forth suits against their employers, claiming that their health has been hurt by it? And if so, could this be a path towards overturning this ruling?

    Isn't this an obvious 14th Amendment test case?

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:40:49 AM PDT

  •  If I see this again, I'm gonna lose it (7+ / 0-)
    don't see a "right" to birth control paid for by someone else.
    Here's the thing -  You want to talk about religious liberty and someone's right to it?  You want to talk about the government not being able to mandate things that go against someone's religion?  You want to talk about people paying for their own birth control?

    The government mandates that I have health insurance.  I pay for a portion of my own health insurance and my employer pays the rest.  Even though the government mandates what services must be provided by my health insurance, I don't get to have them because my employer's religion trumps mine....even though we are BOTH paying for the insurance.

    So where's MY religious liberty?  I'm under a government mandate and paying for health insurance too.  I should be able to be just as free to exercise my religion or lack thereof as my employer.  (More, really, because it's MY body and my insurance.)

    Women are already paying for their own damn birth control.  Now they get to pay for it twice because of workplace religious laws.

  •  SCOTUS Decision=Endorsing Inequality of Women... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots, Yonit, qofdisks

    ...because that's what's at the heart of Hobby Lobby's religious fundamentalist stand against funding birth control.  

    Basically, Religious fundamentalists, whether of the "Christian" variety (which include the SCOTUS Fundamentalists), the "Taliban" variety, etc, view women as less than equal to men. The SCOTUS fundie majority obviously eagerly support that view.  The obvious consequences of their patriarchal, Talibanesque decision was that at least some women will slide back into inequality--exactly where the "religious beliefs" of the SCOTUS fundamentalists, and their Corporate Fundamentalist Brethren want them.

    Womens' struggle for equal rights has been long, and filled with setbacks.  The "mothers of the Pill" funded and fought for an effective, easily accessible means of contraception because "They knew that women could not achieve full equality unless they had control over their reproductive lives,"  

    ..For Sanger, her grandson says, "birth control ... was a means of women escaping poverty...."
    The SCOTUS knows that.  Hobby Lobby knows that.  And that's what they want to change, because they don't want equality for women.  They don't want women to escape poverty.  They don't want women to have "control of their reproductive lives". They don't want
    "...women to have control, sometimes even against the wishes of their partners..."
  •  Geez, I wonder if Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, (0+ / 0-)

    and Breyer ever feel like they are intellectually slumming when in conference with the other five.  Or if they ever don't feel that way.

    •  Well they went along (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots, qofdisks

      with the other 5 on the Buffer Zone ruling.  What about the 75 ft. buffer zone at polling stations, the 100 foot zone at the Supreme Court and the so called "free speech" zones i.e. cages?  After that, I have to question the intellectual credentials of all of them.

  •  Can Someone Tell me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots, qofdisks

    where in the Bible God/Jesus said Women cannot use birth control?

    •  Or more importantly, where in the bible (0+ / 0-)

      did God/Jesus say creation begins with conception?  Up until the early 20th century, abortions were legal in this country until "quickening" and in many cultures that was/is the norm.

Meteor Blades, coral, RF, Subterranean, Liberal Thinking, Gooserock, cotterperson, Jay C, eeff, polecat, Creosote, dpc, Babsnc, TracieLynn, BlackSheep1, susakinovember, smokem2271, Clues, Iberian, splashy, Texknight, psnyder, CitizenOfEarth, kj in missouri, NYFM, Steven Payne, zerelda, Pola Halloween, Josiah Bartlett, Gowrie Gal, Bluesee, qofdisks, dewtx, YucatanMan, Lepanto, eru, peteri2, jane123, Ginny in CO, FindingMyVoice, peacestpete, martini, kovie, redcedar, profundo, cookseytalbott, blueoasis, praenomen, onionjim, IL clb, doingbusinessas, Stripe, shaharazade, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, One Pissed Off Liberal, merrylib, Haningchadus14, camlbacker, yoduuuh do or do not, LillithMc, noofsh, deepeco, sfbob, HCKAD, cyncynical, SeaTurtle, Bridge Master, carpunder, Azubia, Ralphdog, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, VA Breeze, JDWolverton, mconvente, JeffW, HappyinNM, GAS, Mr Stagger Lee, elwior, jamess, TomFromNJ, royce, Hanging Up My Tusks, tristan57, J M F, The Dead Man, ewmorr, bsmechanic, indres, bfitzinAR, sfarkash, cassandraX, SmartRat, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, ATFILLINOIS, NM Ray, pixxer, IQof20, orlbucfan, soaglow, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, kerflooey, Front Toward Enemy, allenjo, ladywithafan, StateofEuphoria, slowbutsure, poorbuster, asterkitty, OhioNatureMom, smiley7, Santa Susanna Kid, MRA NY, sound of progress, Joe Jackson, SteelerGrrl, Sunspots, stlsophos, DRo, BlueDragon, Only Needs a Beat, i saw an old tree today, Siri, ahumbleopinion, nellgwen, oldcrow, AnnieR, a2nite, congenitalefty, BusyinCA, doroma, parakeet, etherealfire, marty marty, bigrivergal, George3, ShoshannaD, CalBearMom, BobTheHappyDinosaur, nuclear winter solstice, MarkW53, nomandates, Alhambra, Ree Zen, Homer177, chocoholic, northerntier, Smoh, BadKitties, Hey338Too, BetterDemocrats, librarisingnsf, OregonWetDog, TheDuckManCometh, leoluminary, LiberalLoner, hbk, AJayne, kfunk937, BMScott, allie4fairness, EABY, Older and Wiser Now, jessbell911, DaveElder

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site