Overturning the Supreme Court

So the democrats in the U.S. Senate have introduced a bill that would override the recent decision in the Supreme court concerning Hobby Lobby.

The mantra seems to be this:

“Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who led efforts by Senate Democrats to respond to the court ruling.

The bill supposedly addresses the exception in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that guided the majority in the court. In other words, it looks like that the democrats want to impinge on the First Amendment rights of for profit, privately owned corporations.

It’s the quote above that makes me sit back a bit. So, your employer doesn’t have any say in your health care decisions, but your employer must pay for your decisions?

I didn’t like the decision to begin with but this bill looks like a few desperate politicians pandering to their far left demographic, trying to show that they’re going to “do something” about this as they said they would.

Because of that, I really don’t see this bill going anywhere and I doubt it will even pass the senate. It’s just for show. If they really wanted to do something about the decision the obvious solution is to write a bill that would have these devices/drugs addressed in the Supreme Court case paid for by the government(taxpayers).

Fat chance that would happen in an election year.

3 thoughts on “Overturning the Supreme Court

  1. “So, your employer doesn’t have any say in your health care decisions, but your employer must pay for your decisions?”

    So long as the employer offers health insurance as part of an employee’s compensation package, the answer to both questions should be yes. No employer nor the corporation that employer represents has a right to make health care choices for me or any other person. By your reasoning here, your employer should be permitted to have a say in decisions about how you spend your paycheck, since it too is part of your compensation package. I am surprised that you think your employer should be permitted to make such decisions for you.

    Like

  2. That wasn’t the point. It was a question about the ethics of the entire stunt by the senate. That’s all it is in reality, a stunt.

    Like

  3. There is nothing unethical about pulling this particular stunt. And my comment was not taking issue with your main point. I frankly don’t care if it is or isn’t a stunt, although I don’t agree that it actually is a stunt. Just because the bill appears not to have a snowball’s chance in hell of passage is insufficient reason to conclude that introducing it is a stunt. I think those who introduced it are likely motivated by their particular set of principles.

    However, my comments were not targeted at your main point. I was taking issue with your specific comment about employers having a say in a person’s health care decisions and choices. Am I not permitted to comment on any of your minor or secondary points? Am I to be accused of missing the point of the commentary because I focused on some other element of your post? Fact is, I did not miss the main point. I just wan’t impressed enough with it or concerned enough about it to comment on it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s