Skip to main content

Protestor with sign:

the soldiers positioned at the rear of a body of troops, especially those protecting an army when it is in retreat.

While I don't agree 100 percent with this piece, I do buy this part:
Where once the religious right sought to inject a unified ideology of traditionalist Judeo-Christianity into the nation's politics, now it seeks merely to protect itself against a newly aggressive form of secular social liberalism.
In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy.

The only reason Hobby Lobby even exists as an issue is because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, an imperfect but important progressive victory. Hobby Lobby doesn't seek to impose its will on America, it seeks to protect itself from the American mainstream.

On gay marriage, on pop culture, on abortion, the religious right has all but acknowledged it is a fringe ideology. It couldn't even get personhood amendment passed in Mississippi! Its agenda is now about carve-outs, preserving its own rights to discriminate and deny slut pills to its own employees and to hell with the American majority.

Yes, the Hobby Lobby decision was in part a minor victory for social conservatives. But it was one half-step forward after more than a dozen consecutive steps back.

The religious right, as a coherent national movement, is dying fast. Liberals need to start thinking and acting like the victors they are instead of like the victims they once justly considered themselves to be.

The religious right won't die on its own, and it has powerful allies on the Supreme Court and state legislatures. But every time each and every one of us votes against its interests at the ballot box, we kill it just a little bit more.

The electoral math is clear. Women have the numbers to make this happen this November. All they have to do is vote. And we win enough of those votes, those allies in state houses and legislatures and the Supreme Court will go bye bye. And then they have nothing left.

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

  •  the new American Exceptionalism, i.e., (15+ / 0-)

    American Exemptionalism

    Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

    by Murphoney on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:36:02 AM PDT

    •  Don't you mean 'merican irrationalism... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shoeless, BlueKS

      or at least SCOTUS irrationalism?

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:03:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One issue not brought up: (13+ / 0-)

      The impetus for this isn't grounded in the evangelical religious right. Even though they are trying to lie low and let evangelicals take the hit in posts such as this, it is driven by the Roman Catholic bishops, who have the money and organization to do this. Look at the list of organizations who were joined in this lawsuit. Look at who has been screeching about the "religious freedom" all throughout the healthcare debate. In fact, look at who has been distributing those "Protect religious freedom" yard signs you see around. Look at who has refused the pretzel-like accommodations the President has made for this "religious freedom" crew, some of which were accepted across the board, even by Catholic health care groups — until the bishops stood up and said no, they wanted the whole enchilada, the total band on birth control applied to everybody that they have been seeking  for decades.

      We do know that the bishops do not have the flock behind them on this. In fact, they don't have the support of some of the people in their own organizations, such as some nuns involved in health care. But they are aggressively trying to stomp our dissent and opposition.

      I'm just interested in where this factors in. Evangelicals are not monolithic, so it is easier for their unity to shatter. What about the Catholic Church? They do have the resources to continue to fund this, whether the people in the pews agree or not. It's a top-down organization.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:26:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eventually (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flevitan, buffie

        It will turn out that not even the Pope is in favor of their position. Doctrine, yes; practice, no. (I hope.)

        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that would be nice because I still don't see how being mandated to provide insurance OPTIONS to another actually violates any religious belief about birth control specifically, particularly if the company is not being forced to make a woman take it!

          How is enabling someone's free and equal conscience, a violation of one's belief that one should not choose to take birth control?

          Do they not confuse the mandated provision of options with a mandate to force birth control on women?

          But, in reality they simply take her right to conscience - her involvement - out of the picture, as if it were no right of hers, and then call it a victory for religious liberty when it's more like a victory for moral dictatorship! They merely defeated the idea of free will --- of it even being a person's choice, when in truth, it still and always remains a choice theoretically, even if not practical or accessible.

          They force us to conclude that is their true mission --- both the removal of her equal capacity for (thereby, right to) conscience and religious liberty and any access/means to exercise that obvious right.

          ...That while, they have the idiots convinced they champion religious freedom  -- Yes, in this world of "some are more equal than others", they have claimed the religious freedom to take it away.

        •  Might even be THIS pope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He's said to be rethinking the Church's position.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:57:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't know. Citations? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        AFAIC, republicans are taking this excuse and running with it.  That includes the leading 5 in the SCOTUS PAC.

        The "right" wants to stunt the sting of every accomplishment over which this administration presides.  Their rationales are showing the strain.

        But I haven't seen the Catholic church in a leading position on the issue -- I admit it might escape my notice.

        I guess I just believe that Catholic Bishops are empty mitres and that they are more conservative than conservatives are Catholic.

        I'd say even the Cardinals are red herrings.  The politics of religion is just politics.

        Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

        by Murphoney on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:55:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dear Catholics (from a recovering Catholic): (0+ / 0-)

        Stop giving the church money. In fact, sue them often and for large amounts. What ever happened to the vow of poverty they all take? Was that done away with? If you look up the word "hypocrite" in a dictionary or encyclopedia, there should be, if the truth be told, a photo of a priest.

  •  Nice flipping of the script, Kos. (16+ / 0-)

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
    Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

  •  We will eventually drag these people, (26+ / 0-)

    kicking and screaming, into the 19th century.

    Obamacare! OMG! Socialism in the US! Time to move to Canada.

    by asm121 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:37:08 AM PDT

  •  Vive l'Arriere-Garde (20+ / 0-)

    We can, and we MUST, make this happen. We've seen this in the defeatist posture the opponents of marriage equality have taken, and now we see it again in the war against the improved and improving stays of women. It all comes down to GOTV yet again, only the stakes are MUCH higher now, off year or no off-year.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

  •  Like on gay rights. Until recently, social cons... (27+ / 0-)

    Like on gay rights.

    Until recently, social conservatives wanted bans on gay marriage/any other recognition, and sometimes even criminal bans on homosexuality. Today, they are just fighting for the right to discriminate.

  •  we have to remind ourselves that today's SCOTUS (30+ / 0-)

    reflects the views, and is the product of, the conservative movement of 10-25 years ago, when it was at its peak. It's now on the decline, demographically and politically, but because SCOTUS is a lagging indicator and justices can stay on the court for life, the legacy of that in-decline movement still affects us, and will for some time to come. But less and less so, both legally and effectively.

    If this sort of legalistic trickery is what they're forced to resort to to hold onto power, then their power is clearly in decline, almost certainly for good. What next, objecting to The Flintstones because they'll have a "gay old time"?

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

    by kovie on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:39:35 AM PDT

  •  Might I point out once again . .. (30+ / 0-)

    that men who want to be able to have sex without making babies also vote. If these people really believe that women who don't want to have babies just shouldn't have sex, then it would imply that men won't have sex either -- which I believe will be an unpopular idea. Am I not right?

  •  the roberts majority (20+ / 0-)

    is the rear-guard of a dying demographic.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:39:48 AM PDT

  •  So (22+ / 0-)
    Liberals need to start thinking and acting like the victors they are instead of like the victims they once justly considered themselves to be.
    By administering the Coup de Gras that ends religious oppression of the rest of us forever.
    Separate Church from State completely.
    And while we're at it, end the tax exemption for churches.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:39:53 AM PDT

  •  I was encouraged to read doctors and nurses are (22+ / 0-)

    opposing Hobby Lobby's interference with the patient/doctor relationship.. I think it is time Wingers are called on their basic ignorance of human anatomy.

    •  This is where you win the argument (8+ / 0-)

      not by trashing the religious because when you trash the religious you trash a lot of Democrats along the way.

      Make the arguments on the merits of science and healthcare.  It's healthcare we want delivered.

      We are not fighting a religious war.

      •  I'm sorry but (15+ / 0-)

        We are fighting a religious war - fundies cannot be reasoned with. Science means nothing to them. The only way to fight them is to stop allowing them to impose their beliefs on the rest of us with legal sanction.

        I am a faithful person, but my religion is not Christian. I understand the importance of religion to many of us, but I also know that true faith comes voluntarily from within. It is not imposed, be it at work or school or in the court room.

        Fundamentalism is not religion; it is a cancer that feeds on hatred and fear, and it will destroy society if we let it. Not like it hasn't happened before.

        Mediocrity cannot know excellence ~ Sherlock Holmes

        by La Gitane on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:26:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But they're not the target (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney, drmah

          We're not trying to persuade the fundamentalists of anything. They're a lost cause.  We're trying to persuade moderates that they should not make common cause with the fundamentalists.

          Religion in the US used to have an incredible amount of moral authority.  It was definitive of the West during the Cold War.  Some of that authority still permeates our political culture, an idea that maybe religious extremism isn't the right answer, but it's at least the honest work of moral people trying to make the world better.

          This is a lie.   These kinds of arguments - that fundamentalists are not honest moral brokers with no greater crime than an old-fashioned morality - is what breaks that hold.  Pointing out the deadly and offensive consequences of their political acts.

          •  I agree with about half of your comment (6+ / 0-)
            Religion in the US used to have an incredible amount of moral authority.
            More authority than moral. This is the root of the problem, from the Salem witch trials until today. The American Christian "religious authority" is conspicuous, if not culpable, in every single most egregious offense in our nation's history.

            Conquering the "heathen" Native Americans, slavery, oppression of women, child abuse, and now we can add bigotry against the Arab world, coddling of the rich, and stoking the flames of gun nuts and anti-immigration racists.

            Ralph Waldo Emerson:

            The Belief in Christianity that now prevails is the Unbelief of men. They will have Christ for a lord, but not for a brother. Christ preaches the greatness of Man but we hear only the greatness of Christ.

            Mediocrity cannot know excellence ~ Sherlock Holmes

            by La Gitane on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:01:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              La Gitane, raspberryberet

              Let me clarify - by saying "moral authority" I don't mean that they were moral.  But that their beliefs were perceived to be moral, and that they were looked to as moral arbiters.  

              Their power as religious organizations was tied to the popular acceptance of the idea that they were guided by honest moral principles, even when that was obviously false.  Religious endorsement for a political idea was extremely valuable, because of this moral authority - even when it was murder, slavery, war, or the rest.  

              And that moral capital extended through the 20th century, even as the underlying beliefs of the population shifted.  Something like premarital sex - even if you were basically for it, you could accept that the church's view against it was a moral opinion.  You couldn't get people to accept that premarital sex was wrong like murder was wrong, but at least, maybe you could persuade them that it was wrong like eating cookies for dinner was wrong.

              But that moral credibility is breaking now, like never before.  Religious attempts to destroy families led by gay couples don't seem like a stern lecture from a grandparent, they feel like the hate crimes they are. And that perception keeps spreading.  

              Pulpits will always have sway over their parishioners.  What they're losing is as sense that they should over anyone else.   And it's a loss they've never suffered before.

  •  I love the diary, but: (14+ / 0-)
    In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy.
    I would absolutely say this is an offensive action.  ;)  I hope to hell it's still offending people in November 2014.


    Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

    by Jon Sitzman on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:41:19 AM PDT

  •  This is why the GOP is all-in on voter suppression (14+ / 0-)

    As the country leaves the GOP behind--both demographically and culturally--and they continue to alienate everyone who isn't white and male, the only possible winning strategy they have left is to block as many people as possible from getting to the polls.

  •  Agree in part, but not this: (6+ / 0-)
    In other words, Hobby Lobby isn't the mark of a Religious Right movement on the offensive, it's one that is trying to carve out exemptions as popular culture and American public opinion grind it to irrelevancy. The only reason Hobby Lobby even exists as an issue is because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, an imperfect but important progressive victory. Hobby Lobby doesn't seek to impose its will on America, it seeks to protect itself from the American mainstream.
    Actually, the number of evangelicals has risen since the Bush years, and leaders are working to consolidate their power and influence in U.S. government. The "fringe" (Tea Party), as you know, is a distraction to make Republican bedrock policies seem normal, centrist. This doesn't seem like a rear-guard move, but a phalanx move. They aren't retreating, they are advancing--the Supreme Court just gave private entities--more than half of U.S. business interests--the right to discriminate against anyone they don't agree with on religious grounds. Let's not fool ourselves into believing this trend is dissipating. It's growing.

    "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying."Edward Snowden -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:45:19 AM PDT

    •  Well reasoned, and well said. The points that (8+ / 0-)

      Justice Ginsberg was making in her dissent are very clear here.  This is just the first assault upon the basics of the 1st Amendment, and the wall of separation between Church and State it built.  The very notion of giving a piece of paper, called "Articles of Incorporation" the status of a "person" with "religious convictions" boggles the mind.  And that MOST CERTAINLY IS the beginning of an attempt to discriminate against anyone and everyone the Incorporators don't agree with on religious grounds.

      This is MOST DEFINITELY NOT A RETREAT  Rather, it is the first of many more battles to come on the front of trying to establish a Theocracy in the United States, to replace our SECULAR REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC; and drag us back into the dank, dismal, dirty, diseased days of the Dark Ages, when "religion" ruled.

    •  Doesn't matter. The number of evangelicals (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yonit, jeturek, raspberryberet, dandy lion

      who want to ban birth control is small. This is driven primarily by the Roman Catholic Church. Look back at all the other battles during  the health care debate over first abortion and then contraception. The prime movers in all of them were Catholic institutions. This is a long-time top item on the bishops' wish list that they've never been able to move forward until recently, in large part because not just public opinion but the opinion of lay Catholics was and is against them on it. But the bishops have the power and the money, as well as the stranglehold on health care in some areas (which could cut either way). This is playing out here in Ohio (as well as other states) in the closure of abortion clinics required to have transfer deals with hospitals. Catholic domination of the health care field endangers women's reproductive freedom because it doesn't stop at abortion. Who said they want to take us back to the 12th century? Bishops are already there!

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:38:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is it? (0+ / 0-)

      Church attendance keeps falling, particularly among Catholics.  More and more people report no religion, or atheism.  Very few immigrants are evangelical Christians.  

      Their political influence waxes and wanes, but their constituency is obviously shrinking, and their agenda is in retreat on everything except abortion.  

    •  The number of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeturek, CanyonWren

      evangelicals as a percentage of the population is shrinking. The fastest-growing religion in the US is "no religion".

      This is definitely a rear-guard action, carving out an exemption from a law that pushed progressivism forward. That right to discriminate? It's the right to exemption from NEW laws (whether it's health care, or marriage equality).

      The religious right doesn't have the support of the American people, and demograohic trends mean they won't ever get it. All that's left is 1) waiting for one of the conservative justices to quit the court, and 2) having the White House and Senate to get our replacement in.

  •  I disagree with the tone of the source (8+ / 0-)

    It might be the fight of a group that knows it's in trouble, but it's not a fight of a group in retreat.  A group in retreat would not be holding onto the SCOTUS and the House.

    Whites in South Africa were a minority, but they set the system up so they would be in charge.  That's what Conservatives are trying to do, on a number of different fronts.

    "Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already." - Austan Goolsbee

    by anonevent on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:47:32 AM PDT

    •  Operative word in your comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cowdab, allensl, Yonit

      "were". South Africa is no longer controlled by its white minority, and at some point neither will SCOTUS and the House be controlled by our conservative one.

      The only questions are how much longer (not much, I hope, I'm not getting any younger), and how much conflict will be necessary to effect the change (I pray it will not be violent).

      "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 Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:53:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the hold on to SCOTUS (by 1 vote) because... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...of life tenure for federal judicial appointments.  George Bush's (both senior and junior) judicial legacies will last two to three decades after they left office.  As others have noted, the only upside is that Scalia is 78, and Kennedy is 77...but OTOH among the moderate justices Breyer is 75 and Ginsburg is 81 and has suffered a (fortunately treatable) form of pancreatic cancer.

      Both the opportunity and the risk here is that if the GOP manages to win the White House in 2016, we could suffer for at least two more decades from a solidly 6-3 or even 7-2 SCOTUS, with e.g. Ginsburg's replacement making Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia look like far-left pinko hippies by comparison.

  •  I sincerely do not understand (8+ / 0-)

    women who vote for Republicans.  97% of women of all kinds, colors and religious affiliations in this country use or have used birth control medications or devices.  If it weren't obvious that religious fundamentalists had outlawing birth control in mind two or ten years ago, it's damn sure obvious now.  Women who vote for Republicans - any Republican, as they all, apparently, support the Hobby Lobby decision, have no claim whatsoever to self-respect or even self-awareness.

    These are the same women who may oppose abortion, and whose votes will now result in even more abortions as a result of their elected officials' opposition to contraception.

    In other news, the day after the Hobby Lobby decision was handed down, the Court issued a clarification that this decision covered all forms of contraception, not just those that Hobby Lobby petitioned for the right to refuse to cover.

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

    by SueDe on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:51:15 AM PDT

  •  overbearing and overextending (9+ / 0-)

    All the Christian right is doing right now is winding up the spring on a massive backlash that's going to hit them hard.

    The Christian right is getting really pushy lately.  They're upset because they're seeing their power waning.  All of their praying didn't keep Obama out of office, all of their crazy didn't stop Obamacare... they're losing battle after battle.  And so they're pushing for more culture-war stuff.

    It's making their religion very unattractive and unappealing.  They're taking on the role of "bad guy" in every fight.  And then they wonder why more and more people are drifting away from religion.  It's not because society's becoming more "immoral."  It's because the church is.  And it's acting so crazy lately that nobody's buying the bullshit anymore.

    To break the back of conservatism in this country, you've got to take out its life-support system, which, for quite some time, has been the right-wing version of Christianity.  And that has already pushed its luck too far and is killing itself under the weight of its own nastiness and insularity.  They're hunkering down, home-schooling, shunning the world they're paranoid of... and that's not the way a movement survives.  Stubborness isn't going to save them.

    It'll be some time yet, but their future isn't bright.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:53:00 AM PDT

  •  piece of cake, dude. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cowdab, Garthhh

    All that is necessary is giving the voters something to be voting FOR.

    Might mean something like the focus at DKos being on getting that fucking Donkey moving in the direction we want it to,  rather than the constant non-stop mocking of the losers who have already lost the culture war.   That scorn needs to be put on the dino Democrats that are doing the oligarchs' bidding.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:54:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree. the Religious Right has been in decline (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, kos

    since the late 80's. They have lost every fight they were involved with -- marriage equality, school prayer, creationism in schools, outlawing abortion--they lost them all. And although the goppers pay them lots of lip service (to keep the checks and votes coming), the reality is that even the GOP has abandoned them--it fights for the interests of money, and money has no religion.

    It is no accident that this "victory" comes from the only branch of government that is not elected. The fundies CAN'T win in any branch of government that IS elected. They have no public support.

    They're done.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:55:52 AM PDT

    •  In decline from what? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lenny Flank

      Was the Religious Right a politically active force before the 1980s?

      Curious thought: It may be that the Religious Right itself was a flare-up, a "rear-guard" harbinger of secularism's progress.

      That's the sense in which Nietzsche originally said "God is dead."

      "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

      by Silencio on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:08:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  in the early 80's, they could actually get (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silencio, savannah43

        elected and pass laws that they wanted (though most of those laws were killed later in court challenges).

        Today, they couldn't pass a slow bus on the highway.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:13:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  SCOTUS rulings are not subject to any (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Silencio, coffejoe

          appeals. This SCOTUS is stacked in favor of the GOP. They make the ultimate laws of the US.

        •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

          They have been very successful in limiting abortion and making it unavailable through various regulatory requirements.

          And creationism is being taught in schools - or evolution is not being taught in schools.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:32:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nope to both (0+ / 0-)

            Their goal was to make abortion ILLEGAL in the US, period.  They failed utterly. They can pass restrictions in areas where they still have a bare majority, but at the national level they have failed completely.

            Creationism is illegal to teach in public schools.  Period. And it is illegal to NOT teach evolution because of religious opposition. Period. Creationists have lost every court case they have ever been involved with. Every one. Without exception. They failed utterly.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:16:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  the real high point of the fundamentalist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        movement was in the 1910's and 1920's.  See:


        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:22:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the high points of religious (0+ / 0-)

          influence in this country are probably echoes of the two Great Awakenings (1730-1745, 1800-1840) plus the religious dimensions of the Populist movement (maybe 1870-1910, sometimes called the Third Great Awakening, just in time for the conservative wing to fold into the Fundamentalist movement you cite).

          You could also make a case for conventional religiosity being important in the Cold War period (1950-1960?), mixing in with anti-Communism and the McCarthy years.

          The so-called Fourth Great Awakening which comprises the Charismatics, Pentecostalists and Religious Right, has created very strong feelings in a minority of the population, but I don't think ever affected the majority.

    •  Not quite every fight..... (0+ / 0-)

      They may lose by law but they go right on doing as they like in many places.  Religion in schools, prayer etc continue.  As long as they are given an inch anywhere, they will eventually go for the next mile and then the next and so on.  We actually have some kind of church meeting on  Sundays in our public grade school here.  Their name is on the school's sign where they usually post activities, holidays and such.  Sunday morning the parking lot is full.  Now, how is that legal?

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:07:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Given the GerryMander of 2010, the current SCOTUS, (12+ / 0-)

    the voter suppression in many states, and the vast, VAST amount of money being supplied by the Koch brothers to buy the American political system, I must differ with you.

    This is an all-out war.  It is no less a war now than it was in the 60's and 70's when William F. Buckley slapped the Birchers down before, only the GOP is embracing them instead of marginalizing them.

    I'm sorry, but this so-called "Rear-Guard Action" is more like a well executed counter-attack trying to undo the last 50 years, nay 110 years of progress.  They want to bring back the Plutocratic Gilded age.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:56:14 AM PDT

  •  Agree with the first half of this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but not the second half.

    Liberals need to start thinking and acting like the victors they are instead of like the victims they once justly considered themselves to be.
    When were liberals victims?  When slavery ended?  When women gained the political franchise?  When unions were legalized?  These were gains of progressivism.  Politics is conflict.  What's gained by painting part of that history as one of victimhood?

    Women, persons of color, the poor -- these categories have been (are) oppressed historically.  But those categories are not unqualifiedly synonymous with "liberals."

    "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

    by Silencio on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:56:15 AM PDT

  •  I get it, but... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit, The Old Grouch, cowdab, Clues

    This article is written with the tone of someone who doesn't have to worry about whether or how the women in his immediate circle will be able to access birth control.  

    Within the horse-race analysis, I think it's likely correct.  But it's troubling that it doesn't even nod in the direction of the immediate harm the decision will bring on many people (not to mention the progeny it will spawn, as has already begun).

    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. Richard Feynman

    by mwk on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:56:25 AM PDT

    •  agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cowdab, mwk

      although I agree with the argument in this article too, it isn't such a limited or rear guard action to half the population (females) who are subject to it.

    •  Birth control was never (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffejoe, mwk

      mandated as part of insurance before. The law changed that. This is a carve-out of that new law. We aren't regressing to a worse-off place than before. We are still better off on birth control than we were before the ACA was passed.

      For conservatives, the ACA was a HUGE loss on multitude levels. This is a clawback of some of those ACA gains, but as a whole, we are still ahead.

      They are a wounded, cornered animal, and those are very dangerous. And they have the Supreme Court. But they won't have it forever. So our job is to make sure we have the electoral majorities to take advantage of the day that one of the conservative five exit the court.

      Conservatives and the religious right have lost the American people. They have the institutional mechanisms to wreak havoc, but all of that is in defensive posture.

      •  Agree, but... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cowdab, raspberryberet

        The ACA mandated lots of things in insurance that were never mandated before (all the junk insurance that was out there).  The idea is that now insurance is required to cover basic things like preventative health.  But now, subject to the whim of an employer, one piece of preventative care, which only directly impacts women, can be excluded.

        Again, I'm not arguing the politics of it.  I'm arguing that the burden is real, and that it should at least be acknowledged along with the discussion of the politics.

        And thanks for responding.  

        Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. Richard Feynman

        by mwk on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:18:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How can a conservative (0+ / 0-)

        plan be considered a huge loss for the conservatives?

        The only reason the repubs opposed it was because it came from a democrat.

        Oh, I guess it was tweaked a bit in the progressive direction.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 08:37:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hobby Lobby is only one battle in a culture war (5+ / 0-)

    that is not about to end anytime soon.  Sometimes, the enemy needs to fight a rear guard action before it counterattacks.   That's the worst time to let up on the pressure.  

    Much madness is divinest sense, much sense divinest madness.

    by SpamNunn on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:59:40 AM PDT

  •  No, they will have something left . . . (5+ / 0-)


    When they are finally and firmly powerless and society has moved beyond them the most fanatical among them will resort to violence to make their voice heard.

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:00:55 AM PDT

  •  thank you for giving this its proper frame: war (4+ / 0-)
  •  What if there was a liberal revolution... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinazina, Mikey, lilsky, kos

    ... and no one noticed?

    In the past decade:

    1.  Mainstreaming and legalization of gay marriage
    2.  Legalization of marijuana
    3.  National, affordable healthcare
    4.  Gradual validation of need to raise minimum wage
    5.  Solidification of desire not to touch Social Security - EVER

    Sure some bumps and lurches (still no national minimum wage raise, Obama's idiotic attempts to mess with S.S. in 2011)

    But c'mon.  Ten years ago these victories were impossible to imagine.

    •  That's because they have the majority on SCOTUS, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and these things will likely be knocked down when they arrive at the Court.
      Letting someone think they won and then knocking them down and kicking them is much more fun when the victims think they've won. Cockiness on behalf of the victims just entices the bullies.

      •  Um (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ACA already survived the Supreme Court. The minimum wage isn't in any danger of Court reversal. Neither is Social Security.

        Gay marriage survived the first Supreme Court challenge, which is why Californians have full equality. And pot? The control of substances is well within the purview of the executive and legislative branches. Not sure what legal theory would ever threaten it at the High Court.

        So no, none of these broad victories are threatened by the Supreme Court. The best the cons can do is chip away at the margins.

    •  Hmmm.. sounds like you are saying (0+ / 0-)

      we will win if we don't shoot until we can see the whites of their eyes.  I can just see those big eyes with whites all the way around like the run-away-bride.......   just a little humor...

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Probably the best analysis of the ruling (0+ / 0-)

    And the Holy Lobby Situation that I have read.  It brings a smile to my face.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:08:36 AM PDT

  •  So, get out and vote! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

    by mungley on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:14:08 AM PDT

  •  Pretty much. Conservatism inherently pits itsel... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Pretty much. Conservatism inherently pits itself against the human tendancy towards reason, logic, and moderation. The problem is the constant march of time, and theres no way to indoctrinate everyone fast enough and completely enough to overcome that. In a society of free thought its death was an inevitability. Hobby Lobby is just a desperate attempt to find a handhold as they tumble down to slope to irrelevancy.

  •  Rear guard or death by a thousand cuts? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cowdab, raspberryberet, Minnesota Deb

    If you look at the strategy on Abortion rights they've made so many rules that make it very difficult for a woman to make a choice in many red states.

    I think they understand that they are losing this but they can be very effective in creating so many hurdles for the rest of us that they essentially win.

  •  I'm worried that Obamacare could be killed if t... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm worried that Obamacare could be killed if the US Court of Appeals in DC strikes down the federal subsidies in the 36 states without state exchanges, over what I think is a technicality in the Act's text. Apparently a decision from a conservative judge is expected any day now. Can someone please update us on this?

  •  All true, and well put. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The downside to this is that collectively, the Reich Wingers are very much like a rabid, wounded, and angry animal, cornered in an unfamiliar place. Their only way out (from their feeble-minded perspective) is to strike out, early and often.

    That is why stoking fear and anger are to important to them. Not only are they powerful base emotions, having such feelings often blinds people from  contrary fact. Unfortunately for them, fear and anger do die out over time, and once people wake up from the nachtmare that is TeaBuggerism, they will never, ever return.  

    The same applies to conservative christians. They are running scared, because more and more, their churches are emptier, their donations and tithes smaller, and their crowds far, far older.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:28:46 AM PDT

  •  77% of Married Women Use Birth Control Regularly (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, cowdab, raspberryberet, buffie

    This isn't just an issue for drunk, horny college students (not that I have any issue with them having "consequence free sex").  This impacts all women of childbearing age not to mention their spouses.

    My wife and I believe in and practice family planning.  We have 3 kids (a daughter and twin boys) and we are done.

    Something tells me are not alone.  

  •  kos is right (0+ / 0-)

    If you had to pick only one: a favorable outcome for the Hobby Lobby decision(2014) OR a favorable outcome to overturn DOMA and defeat for Prop 8(2013), I think everyone would keep last year's decision. It was far more influential and groundbreaking and would affect a lot more people than what happened this week.

  •  Let me get this straight — the Religious Right, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cowdab, apimomfan2

    according to this diary, is a "fringe ideology" that is on the brink of "irrelevancy,"

    AND, simultaneously, a compelling reason to demand that liberals vote for an increasingly militarist, corporatist, anti-civil-liberties Democratic Party.

    Which is it?  It can't be both.  If the Religious Right is truly a dying fringe ideology that is on its deathbed, then I'll vote my liberal principles, which happen to be worlds apart from today's shitty Democratic Party.

  •  WINNING will DEFEAT the teabagelical birth control (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, raspberryberet

    opposition agenda for many, many years to come. How? I think in many ways this will be similar to the arguments about abortion. (First of all, as an aside, I have argued for many years that anti-abortion people are usually against birth control too. Many people have argued with me that these are completely separate issues. I think this case finally shows that rabid anti-choicers often mix in erroneous claims about how birth control methods actually cause abortions, and in many cases, they oppose all birth control methods, including condoms. That's because their agenda is about forced birth and power over women. Abortion and birth control are two sides of the same coin for them.) Second, it has often been said that if Roe v. Wade was ever actually overturned it would be a disaster for Republicans. It's easy to talk about overturning abortion laws until people all over the country--conservatives, independents, and liberals alike--suddenly had their daughters get pregnant accidentally and realize that they had no options. So, if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, it would be a short matter of time before Republicans would be voted out of office. I think many people in the party leadership know this. But, they love to go right up to the edge of repeal, to rile up the stupids in their base. The base doesn't get it. They really want repeal. They don't realize the consequences.

    So, attacking contraception coverage for women (not to mention the other Pandora's box of other so-called religious exemptions opened up for this asinine ruling) will galvanize women and men who believe in birth control like nothing else they have ever seen. I think the first step to galvanizing people is to win the bumper sticker war. Here are my initial suggestions. Please add more.

    *Religious Freedom = Free Viagra for Men But NO Birth Control for Women?

    *Your Religious Freedom Doesn't Mean You Own My Ovaries

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:37 AM PDT

  •  I believe this is the correct long term... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...perspective on the issue. The conservative movement, or what goes by that name these days, has been cornered into a strategically indefensible position. That it will implode at some point appears to me as a historical and demographic inevitability. Ironically, and one could also say deservedly, when they fight back it only hastens their own demise. The blowback from this particular ruling has already exceeded any tangible benefits they could ever hope to derive from it, and this is just the beginning.

  •  Religious right killing churches. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, jeturek, raspberryberet

    The religious right, using misinformed churchgoers to forge election victories, have killed and are killing much of the public's interest in churchgoing and organized religion.

    When young people see churches being used not to start up a soup kitchen or provide a little reassurance in a scary world, but to spread a constant stream of hatred and bile targeting any shred of decency or concern for other human beings--the poor, the gay, whatever--it's a "turn off."

    Keep spreading hatred, right wingers, Fox Propaganda Channel, etc.  It speeds along your decline.  I just wish the process weren't as slow as it is.

  •  Ginsberg is 81, Scalia is 78 (0+ / 0-)

    but Scalia looks a lot younger than Ginsberg. Ginsberg looks like an old grandmother(and I like her!). Scalia must dye his hair.
    By the way if she resigned next week, would this motivate more dems or repubs to vote in Noovember

  •  Cash payment in leiu of birth control mandate? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Couldn't HHS just make a rule that said if a company asks for a religious exemption to the ACA contraception mandate that they still have to pay an equivalent amount to female employees that they would have received with other plans that have contraceptive coverage? So, in effect, women could still get money to pay for contraceptive coverage (at group rates offered through other plans by that insurer), and the employer would not get any financial advantage over other employers due to a religious exemption that would give lower costs.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:50:54 AM PDT

    •  Right. HL would not object to giving their (0+ / 0-)

      employees money to buy birth control.  That could put the employee in just as bad a position as not insuring for it.  Some are $40 or so a month; and some are near $1000 for insertion of an IUD.  Not a practical solution.  

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:36:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You take the average cost of plans with coverage (0+ / 0-)

        of contraception for females and compare it to the plan offered by Hobby Lobby. If the cost for HL was below that average, they'd be ordered to make up the difference in cash payment to the employee. That money could be used to purchase a separate insurance rider that would cover all the different birth control options, including IUDs. This isn't insurmountable...and I dare them to challenge it to the Supreme Court again.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:24:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Minimum wage employees are, by definition, (0+ / 0-)

          low wage earners.  Put extra cash into their paycheck and I will guarantee that a kid needs something desperately or some other place will take precedence over that 'birth control' money.  
          Also, why should they be made to dance to the tune of their employer any more than other employers can legally require?  
          There should be no tricks or special requests that an employee must hurdle to collect what is legally theirs.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by cowdab on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:54:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They shouldn't be made to do this, but the Supreme (0+ / 0-)

            Coots have decreed it. What I am suggesting is a way to prevent employers from paying less (i.e. benefiting from religious bigotry) and allowing employees to get the value they are entitled to under the birth control mandate. If you have a better solution let me know. Otherwise, complaints don't solve the problem.

            Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

            by tekno2600 on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:12:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suppose what I'm standing on here is principal. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not sure where I launch any opinion or  suggestion from if not from principal.  Once, in my opinion, that we roll over and allow them to divide us according to who does/doesn't have them, we are dead in the water.  

              It may be fighting a circle saw, but it is the only tactic I've seen yet that gets anything done.  Yes, compromise; but never give up the basic principal for which we fight.  I'm not fond of using the back door when equal rights say I'm entitled to use the front.  I will probably go in the front even knowing I'll take the first hit.  It may hurt but it also gives the most satisfaction... win or lose.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by cowdab on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:08:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  And note this (12+ / 0-)

    The biggest part of all this is a change in tone.  No longer are churches and religious people a moral party who should be listened to because they're right.  

    Instead, they're an isolated group of weirdos, who are tolerated in the name of pluralism.  Some of that argument is plainly bullshit, but it reflects a growing reality.  

    When the boy scouts exclude gay kids, they're not upholding a moral code any more.  They're being permitted to engage in unseemly behavior.  Hobby Lobby is not at the front lines for a moral crusade that the rest of us are too lax to join, they're fusty old bigots who just barely skate by because our protections of minority groups will catch bigots sometimes.

    They're increasingly finding themselves next to Klansmen instead of next to Presidents.  That's a big deal.  

  •  Poll Says Most Favor Hobby Nazi (0+ / 0-)

    Just read a poll that says 46 v 41% approve of the stupid Hobby Nazi decision.   Stupidity of Americans never ceases to amaze me.

    President Obama needs to be more liberal.

    by jimgilliamv2 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:08:58 AM PDT

    •  If Hobby Lobby turns out not to be the potent (0+ / 0-)

      wedge issue that Team Blue cheerleaders hoped it would be, you'll see interest in it evaporate overnight.   I've seen it happen many times.   Core issues of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party disappear from sight the moment they cease to be a valuable political weapon, and the Dirty Hippies who still care about those issues are left in the wilderness

      •  Nonsense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Reproductive rights have been front-burner liberal issues for decades. The fight over contraceptives in particular has a long history. This isn't an abstract hypothetical for the millions of working women who don't have the luxury of vetting an employer's political views before taking a job. My wife is among the many women who've had to pay for BC out-of-pocket because of regressive employer policies.

        •  Won't make a difference. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm one of those Greenwaldistas focused on civil liberties, which was a core liberal issue throughout the Bush years.  I watched as it got completely tossed aside as soon as Obama took office.  I realized that most Democratic partisans had no authentic allegiance to civil liberties or any other liberal issue that they pretend to care about.  There were happy to use civil liberties as a wedge issue when Bush was in office, and they were equally happy to forget all about it when it had ceased to be a useful political weapon.   Hobby Lobby will be no different.  If polling shows there's no exploitable electoral angle in Hobby Lobby for the Democratic Party, the partisans will move on to something else.  That's what they do.

  •  Except that it hurts real people (5+ / 0-)

    And we still have this same Supreme Court going forward.

    These ugly decisions will hold even after these justices are gone. It will hurt a lot of people, for a long, long time to come.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:14:05 AM PDT

  •  I hope this is right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My worry is that this is not a rear guard action, but just a move to fight on another front, since their battle against gay rights is being lost in a big way.  

    A couple of people have mentioned the harm this does, even if , in fact, it's a rear guard action, but the thing that strikes me the most is the sheer amount of firepower they're putting into the war on women.  Between shutting down clinics, mandating invasive ultrasounds, muzzling doctors and demanding they tell lies to women, shutting off every single avenue of birth control that they can, and killing the equal pay's immense.  And right now, America, even though it is strongly backing the move for gay rights, seems reluctant to step up in the same way for women.

    If America doesn't step up to this, even if it started as a rear guard action, it will turn into another full blown war on a whole new front.  I don't think anyone should be congratulating themselves on the demise of conservative ideals yet.

  •  40 years of last gasps (4+ / 0-)

    I'm nearly 60 and have been hearing this stuff about "this is the last gasp of the old guard/patriarchy/right wing/religious nuts" for my entire adult life.  They are in good shape, actually; all they have to do is keep the 5 old men alive until they can elect a President to appoint some more.  They've shown that they only need SCOTUS and the House to rule the country.  We need to fight them but without any more illusion or delusion.

  •  In the meantime.....? (0+ / 0-)

    If Hobby Lobby wants to play a significant role in a woman's reproductive future, then can they not be made to bear major responsibility for the outcomes?

    Such companies should pay for the results of their desire to play moral dictator. I see no reason why they should be able to have it both ways...and escape blame for any physical and/or economic hardship that might befall a woman, willfully made vulnerable to pregnancy by a now Secular-Religious corporation.

    If a woman were to become impregnated against her will, after being essentially coerced to forgo her preemptive, self-defense rights, freedom of conscience, and otherwise viable options by her employer -- has she no grounds for a lawsuit? Would if she incurs medical or financial or emotional damage from a pregnancy or an abortion that she does not want? Can the government also arbitrarily protect companies from pain and suffering claims, as a result of their overtly discriminatory refusal to acknowledge her rights and to provide the complete range of defensive options, so that she might be responsible for her own choice in the first place?

    Do their "religious beliefs" exempt them from all risk of being held financially accountable for their actions and "personal" decisions, as they so demand of others??

    Time to explore all ways (in the Courts and in future Congresses, if possible) to hold our new secular-religious corporations responsible for the results of their deliberately-engineered-to-make-vulnerable, health care policies.

    I would guess some creative lawyers are already licking their chops....but hey, no" dead-beat dad", secular-religious companies allowed in our new, morally upright, rape-friendly, fascist theocracy, right? I mean, screw the "War and June Cleaver" family unit and the need for fathers -- Now women shall be just considered and made unprotected, impregnable maidens for the Fatherland and wives of the Father State, via government-backed, big business and its new-found religious authority!

    ...If not hell-bent on repeating history horrors and/or making dystopian nightmares come true, these idiots certainly induce the very socio-economic difficulties and litigation appetites they claim to loathe and fight.

  •  I have to wonder whether it is a victory of any... (0+ / 0-)

    I have to wonder whether it is a victory of any kind. When you purchase insurance plans for your employees, you don't get a menu of drugs you will and will not pay for, right? You buy into a plan and then you don't see inside the administration of that plan. You just pay the employer component of the insurance and that's it.

  •  Just Like Same Sex Marriage (0+ / 0-)

    Remember when all those laws prohibiting same sex marriage, or defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, passed about 10 years ago?  Remember how it felt like progressives had lost?

    No.  The religious right was really on the losing side, and they knew it (some of them, anyway).  Because if America really was the place they THOUGHT it was....

    ...they'd never have to "fight" against same sex marriage in the first place.  It wouldn't be necessary.  

    This is the right's temporary victory on the road to long term defeat on this issue.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

    by Bring the Lions on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:10:07 AM PDT

    •  We also remember (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When birth control was legal and freely available without much fuss at all.  I remember when Roe v. Wade was won, and all our troubles were finally over.  That was years ago, and now here we are on the ropes again.

      I am very glad of the victories with same sex marriage as well, but we need to remember that we'll probably end up having to fight for it all over again after a number of years.

    •  They keep doing this because they have (0+ / 0-)

      nothing to lose.

  •  Uniting 2 wings (0+ / 0-)

    The 2 wings of the Republican Party are business "conservatives" and social "conservatives." (Actually both wings are more reactionary than conservative.)

    The movement to let businesses impose their social positions on their employees and their customers is a hope to unite them together.

    Of course, it only works when the businesses have right-wing social positions.

  •  Hobby Lobby and Women's Right (0+ / 0-)

    Saying that the Hobby Lobby decision represents merely a "rear guard action" ignores the appalling inroads that have been made over the past ten year in women's right to choose, despite women's (and the majority of Americans') support for this right.  While it is correct that not even Mississippi has been able to pass a personhood amendment, MANY states have effectively eliminated the right to choose by shutting down clinics through onerous and irrational regulations.  All American women need to act to guarantee that these rights are restored before we are forced back to back alleys and coat hangers.

  •  What worries me about (0+ / 0-)

    "carving out exemptions" is that the exemptions might swallow the rule, as several states seem to be managing in their end-runs around Roe v. Wade via stumbling blocks to the abortion process rather than outright prohibition.

    If a Christian Scientist-owned company manages to get a total exemption from health insurance (beyond funding pay-for-pray services, perhaps), will we see a stampede of owners to become Christian Scientists, at least in name?

    And what happens when (not if) the scope of requested religious exemptions expands beyond birth control into, say, hiring practices?  Asking for an exemption to Equal Opportunity for at least homosexuals is very real possibility, as there are passages in the Bible prohibiting it.  There is even a prohibition against wearing the clothing of the other sex (Deuteronomy 22:5), so no cross-dressers need apply.  Even masturbation (called Onanism) is a no-no.  Would this lead to a plethora of personal questions on employment applications?

    The genie is out of the bottle.

    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson/// "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

    by ThePhlebob on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:17:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site