Quantcast
U.S. & World

High court seems divided over birth control rule

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    "but he said only the kind of family-owned companies he represents would make such claims, not large, multinational corporations."

    Except one of his clients is Hobby Lobby with 600 stores and 15,000 employees. That's pretty large. Is Walmart family owned? What kind of definition would be used for that?

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 25, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    Here's what I've noticed about the religious zealots like the owners of Hobby Lobby who insist that their particular brand of christianity is the correct one and they therefore deserve special treatment. Despite their confidence and certainty, they will shriek and moan at the slightest glimpse of an offense. How should those of us who disbelieve in God or religion understand this? Does their god not bestow comfort in the face of opposition?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 25, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    So long as companies like Hobby Lobby buy and sell products from Communist China -- their arguement of "religion" and "not promoting abortions" is moot and hypocritical.

    Grow and show some integrity.
    Put your money where your mouth is why don't you?

  • Abeille West Point, UT
    March 25, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    slcdenizen -

    This has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby being a "religious zealot", as you say. It also has nothing to do with their belief that "their particular brand of Christianity is the correct one...". As the article mentions most clearly, the litigants feel any form of birth control used after conception violates their religious beliefs. Personally, I don't agree with their position, but I respect their right to believe as they wish - just as I respect your right to "disbelieve". The question before the court is whether a corporation, C-Corp, or LLC - all entities that are taxable, stand on their own, and limit the liability of their owners - have the right to mirror the owner's religious beliefs. It's not so straight-forward.

    In the end, I hope they can find some way of working around this issue and allow the owners to avoid violating their religious beliefs while also allowing the women that work there the opportunity to acquire birth control, if they desire. Perhaps Hobby Lobby keeps its current Health Code plan, but employees have the right to personally and directly supplement the plan another way - perhaps through the Affordable Care Act.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    March 25, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    Example of a typical complainer:

    Complains that lack of birth control is war against women,

    Ignores hollywood, pornography, and the fashion industry etc.

    Perhaps you could CHOOSE not to get pregnant if you WEREN'T just an OBJECT to be used by another. Go ahead and hate but please hate with priority!

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 25, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    @Abeille

    "I hope they can find some way of working around this issue and allow the owners to avoid violating their religious beliefs"

    Thus the silliness of the whole situation. The God of the Bible, whom they claim to worship, never mentions contraception. Hence one must conclude that the "religious beliefs" are an interpretation or third-step conclusion from some verse or traditional understanding. Fine, then I invoke the right to slay my neighbor for working on the Sabbath, which I can find explicitly condoned in the Bible. Or, perhaps if I can't follow that expressly permitted command, I can physically silence women in my church as mentioned by Paul, which in this case I'll also consider my place of work because my religion isn't confined to my own home. My God is everybody's God and I won't hear otherwise. Have I devolved into insanity yet? In just a short paragraph? No, sir, I do not want to slip back down the slippery slope of allowing one's religious beliefs to impinge on others. Our society was the birth child of the enlightenment and we should continue on that trajectory.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    @CBAX
    Lots of women use birth control for a variety of reasons, many of them don't involve casual sex outside of marriage. Many want to limit the number of children they have in their marriage. Some have health issues and certain contraceptives help with it. Some just don't want to deal with a pregnancy if heaven forbid they should be raped. Besides... where's the complaints about how all these insurance companies cover "male enhancement" pills? Now THAT's something that has little purpose other than helping people have more sex (though even then that can help some who want to have children but are having difficulty with it).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    @CBAX
    Speaking of which... that girlfriend I had who used contraception in part in case someone raped her, that wasn't paranoia, her sister was a victim of that very thing. In Michigan, health insurance policies aren't allowed to cover abortion so if someone wanted coverage for abortion for any reason including rape they'd need to buy what is effectively "rape insurance". It's disgusting, but hey, that's the kind of thing you all support making women have to do.

  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    March 25, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    Health Care is the service that so many are concerned about and need. Birth control is a private matter that should not be covered by Health Insurance. This should be an individual commitment and if someone wants to practice birth control let them pay for that. If a company does not want to participate in birth control as part of their insurance they should not have to. How many years have we participated in company health insurance that did not offer birth control? I've never had it in my insurance. If someone doesn't want to work for a company because of they don't include birth control in their insurance, look somewhere else for a job. What kind of a nation are we becoming that think that other people should pay for our every need?

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    March 25, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    Let's make sure that we understand the central fact of the case. There are four approved drugs or devices approved in the US for prevention of pregnancy that prevent the implantation of a blastocyst (fertilized egg) in the uterus. These are the birth control methods that the Green family currently does not cover in their health plan for their employees and object to on moral grounds. They currently provide in their plan the 16 other approved birth control drugs that prevent either ovulation or fertilization. There's no war on women here, no denying legitimate health care needs. They just don't want to be involved in terminating a pregnancy that has already started.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    March 25, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    Schnee - Walmart is a publicly traded corporation,you can buy Walmart stock. Hobby Lobby is a closed corporation and the public cannot buy stock. Teh green family are the sole owners of the business and all of it's assets. People incorporate family businesses in order to get better tax rates and to prevent their homes and personal property from becoming part of the assets of the business.

    Should that deprive them of the right to not spend their assets on something that they are morally opposed to?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 25, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    First,

    The first amendment limits what congress can do in regards to first amendment rights.

    It doed not define who can exercise those right, nor limit the people or how they organize themselves in exercising those rights.

    Second.

    Businesses provide healthcare as a benefit, paid for in part or entirely by the business,

    as such, they are entirely in their rights in deciding what benefits they will pay for.

    The employee is free to pay for additional coverage on their own,

    Finally,

    Religion is not only something that is practiced in private, but can be and is part of every aspect of the lives or religion people and religions.

    The government has no constitutional power, to limit religion in the public square nor to limit it's exercise in the public square.

    The government can not confine it to home and church. Nor should it ever.

    So what is the issue?

    People demanding things from their employers they have no right demanding.

    And in this case it is the federal government demanding something that is violation of the first amendment.

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 25, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    Birth control & abortion should not be part of health insurance plans. Businesses should not be required to offer them as part of an insurance policy. And for my liberal friends who will raise this issue, yes, Viagra should also not be part of any insurance plans.

    How many decades have liberals stated that the government should stay out of the bedroom. They should allow personal, private decisions to be made when it comes to sex. Well...keep the government from forcing employers to include birth control, Viagra, and abortion in their insurance plans. And the government shouldn't require me to pay for your personal decisions.

    If someone wants a plastic surgery procedure, will I be taxed on that? Will that be the next thing required in Obamacare?

    What about vision correction, teeth whitening, hair plugs? Those are all elective procedures.

    Americans that want birth control, pay for it yourself. Take some personal responsibility.

  • Madsen Hall Magic Centerville, UT
    March 25, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    I believe you cannot separate the values of the CEO from the values of the business. If the CEO lives his life according to Judeo-Christian values, and wants his business to reflect those deep, heart-felt values, s/he should be at liberty, and free, to create such a business culture. This is America! We are free to worship, yes, even through our business we can extend our worship to how we serve others in the business.

    If a CEO objects personally to abortion and birth control, s/he should be free to create a business culture that reflects those beliefs so that s/he does not wound his/her conscience of belief. If an employee wants those as part of an employee compensation package, they are free to seek employment where the insurance covers those things. Nobody is forced to offer or accept something they do not want. The government should not be forcing this upon any of us.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 25, 2014 6:07 p.m.

    The morally superior Green family is concerned more with the bottom line then abortion.
    This is born out of the fact, that they have no problem buying most of their products from China
    which not only pays for abortions but still Encourages abortion after one child.

    The bottom line is Hobby Lobby is a business that want's to tell other businesses what they can and cannot do.

    The private insurance company is being told by Hobby Lobby what it can and can't offer in the way of healthcare.

    Hobby Lobby want's to tell you and your doctor what it believes is best.

    So once again as others have pointed out, these religious folks think they should be able to force their beliefs onto employees who don't share their brand of religion.

    Giving businesses "Personhood" would be a very bad idea, the republicans should start the legislation next year.

    If the business and the owners are one, why are they legally separated from liability?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 25, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    What are they thinking. If people can't afford birth control Are they old enough to have sex.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    March 25, 2014 8:08 p.m.

    The Court said in Windsor that having to pay taxes that others don't have to pay is discriminatory, but when religious people have to pay taxes that others don't have to pay that is acceptable? The females of the Court are operating under a double standard for those that they agree with.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    March 25, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    One thing nobody seems to be talking about:

    The Green family could be operating their business as individual proprietors/partners, but they choose not to. Instead, they've chosen to operate as a corporation--a government-created legal entity that shields them from individual liability for their business's actions and grants them favorable tax treatment.

    Their arguments about religious freedom would be far more persuasive if they did business in their capacity as natural persons. Instead, they're hiding behind the special treatment that government provides corporations, while decrying how government impinges on their religous freedom.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 25, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    this won't stop with corporations make no mistake. The next domino to fall will be churches being FORCED to support late term abortion via the morning after pill. Liberty is DEAD in this country. Get used to it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 25, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    "High court seems divided over birth control rule"

    Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment.

    ---------------

    "Here's what I've noticed about the religious zealots like the owners of Hobby Lobby who insist that their particular brand of Christianity is the correct one..."

    Oops. It's not about whose religion is correct. It's about not allowing the government to interfere with the rights of citizens to practice religion uninhibited.

    "The God of the Bible, whom they claim to worship, never mentions contraception."

    Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be infringed.

    "Fine, then I invoke the right to slay my neighbor for working on the Sabbath..."

    Slaying your neighbor, on any day, is not a good idea. Could put you behind bars... or worse.

    "Many want to limit the number of children they have in their marriage."

    It's not rocket science. Go to the drug store and buy, for a few dollars, the pill or paraphernalia to prevent pregnancy.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    March 25, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    LDS Liberal, you are absolutely right. There seems to be a fair amount of disingenuousness among those claiming "religious" objections to fund birth control, when they have no problem supporting the expansive birth control culture in China by manufacturing goods in that country--thereby helping to prop up the communist regime and the objectionable family values promoted there. I noticed the same thing here in Utah. In my youth, I worked for a locally owned convenient store chain in Utah County. The owner refused to sell birth control because it was against his wife's LDS values. That is fair enough, they can sell what they want, but their "values" seemed contradictory. You see, they sold beer, wine coolers, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco like it was going out of style. I asked the manager about this contradiction. She just laughed and said that those items make too much money as compared to birth control. So there you have it folks! Money is the real culprit here and that is Hobby Lobby's problem as well. They support abortions in China because of the amount of money they make there.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 25, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    The penalty has been ruled a tax. So is it okay to tax people for their religious beliefs and practices, which are guaranteed by the first amendment? If there were an additional income tax based on which religion one is a member of, that would be considered outrageous, and contrary to the first amendment.

    Some might argue that HL could just pay the penalty, which is cheaper than the premiums. But what if HL wants to provide health insurance as a benefit to its employees, either out of benevolence or a desire to compete for better employees, but they choose a plan that does not cover abortifacients, then they would have to pay twice. They would pay the premiums and the $2000 penalty.

    Taxes on practice of ones religion are prohibitive to the free exercise of religion, and are therefore contrary to the first amendment.

    I hope the attorneys for HL and the other companies were sufficiently articulate in pointing this out.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    March 25, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    The company can not pay for the morning after pill for an employee or the spouse of an employee, they would paying for an abortion.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    March 26, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    Wow, Kings Court - I guess the matter is clearly settled. Since a Quiki-mart owner in Utah County was a hypocrite, therefore ALL business owners claiming right of conscience have no honest beliefs and are only motivated by greed and money.

    Thanks for the broad brush. Clearly, everyone needs the government to determine who holds sincere beliefs that can be allowed constitutional protection.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 26, 2014 4:40 a.m.

    @K 10:23 p.m. March 25, 2014

    The company can not pay for the morning after pill for an employee or the spouse of an employee, they would paying for an abortion.

    ----------------------------

    The morning after pill does not terminate (abort) a pregnancy. No pregnancy has been started when the morning after pill is taken. The only thing the morning after pill does is keep a pregnancy from starting.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2014 6:14 a.m.

    @patriot:

    "late term abortion via the morning after pill"

    There seems to be a contradiction here....

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    March 26, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    >>The question before the court is whether a corporation...have the right to mirror the owner's religious beliefs. It's not so straight-forward.

    Actually, that's not the question before the court at all. The question before the court is whether the government's desire to force corporate-provided insurance to cover abortifacients meets the established legal test for whether a proposed regulation is justified in restricting First Amendment rights.

    The established test says that any proposed regulation that would restrict a constitutional freedom 1) must address a very compelling government interest; and 2) must "employ the least restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal." While the Obama Administration's wish to expand access to contraception *might* meet the first requirement, there's no way it meets the second. Abortifacients are so dirt cheap and prevalent--you can buy them at any drug store for the cost of a six-pack of soda--it's difficult to see how intruding on Freedom of Religion is required to make them even more widely available.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    March 26, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    I agree with Abeille. The issue in this case is if a for-profit corporation can exercise religion. Based on what I've read so far, I think the Hobby Lobby side has the stronger argument. Ironically, the government seems to have undermined its own position by bending over backwards to respect religious rights in connection with the ACA and in other areas in the past. (I know this may be a shocker to the "Government hates religion" crowd, but this is indeed the case.)

    The government also conceded the sincerity of the belief in question. I question who the belief actually serves. The religious right's anti-abortion crusade has always struck me as fundamentally selfish. It allows one to feel morally righteous (and, for some, superior) without bearing any responsibility for the lives affected by one's actions. What a nice position to be in.

    I'm all for limiting the necessity of abortion as much as possible, but a judgmental and moralistic approach seems to be more about serving one's ego than actually addressing the problem. If the Hobby Lobby owners sincerely want to limit abortions, they should have no objection to the contraceptives in question.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 26, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    @wrz

    "Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be infringed."

    I'm glad we're progressing past these arguments. If you're assertion was to be followed and respected, then there would be no societal argument against allowing the ku klux klan to likewise impose their deeply held convictions on their communities. If you're a member, then I withdraw from the argument. If you're not, then apply your same reasoning above to denounce the ku klux klan, who are simply following their religious beliefs.

    Or, on the other hand, we could continue to require a semblance of common good and humanity in the beliefs of others and not be hesitant to critisize each other's religious beliefs , the unchecked application of which have led to horrible atrocities in the past. Your choice, I've picked mine.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 26, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    @wrz

    "Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be infringed.

    =================

    Then Warren Jeffs was illegally imprisoned wasn't he? I mean after all he was only doing what he felt God was commanding him to do. And his right to worship is not to be infringed.

    Or are you saying that there can be reasonable restrictions in place?

  • Here Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    The history is that it used to be, and still is to a some degree that companies would provide health benefits to its employees as an incentive, to attract and retain the best employees. In other words, an incentive, and also a gift to employees to promote and preserve health. It wasn’t a “right”. Now it’s turning into a litmus test, a cause, an inalienable right.

    Now why is it the government’s job to dictate to said corporation exactly what will be and what won’t be part of that insurance. Why are some rights so staunchly supported (i.e. “PERSONAL” freedoms) to the point that SOCIETAL, or RELIGIOUS freedoms seem banished. Isn’t it the legislature’s job to reconcile all these kinds of freedoms, using integrity and intelligence, BALANCING one group’s freedom with another’s. No one right should be championed at the expense of all others. Can we really afford to uphold one constitutional amendment at the expense of another. Really?

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    If you don’t like dedicated Christians who happen to run businesses, why work for them. You’re bound to have serious disagreements with them at some point. I’m not saying you should be PROHIBITED from working for them, but why would you want to. Why join their company and then constantly endeavor to foist your philosophy on them.

    If you think about it, aren't companies just a conglomeration of individuals, be they employees, stock-holders, or executives, bound together by legal covenant to advance the corporation. Why are you forcing them to accept someone's liberal agenda.

    I’ll tell you one big reason health insurance is such a hot potato. Because it is so expensive. Someone is making so much money while the rest of us are hurting. But conservatives at least understand that even though it may be unfair, rich people and corporations still have rights.

    Another reason people complain about such issues is “for the principle of the thing.” One thing I notice is that people who do that are usually riding their own "hobby horse."

  • Here Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Who is holding whom hostage? You say that the owners have no prerogative to specify what is in their company's health benefits. A person without balance will complain till all moral judgments are voided and they get everything they want. A reasonable person will be grateful for what health benefits they have (health benefits are not a right, never were), and pay out of his/her own pocket for those inexpensive items his company does not.

    And if the company's health plan excludes too many things, for whatever reason, that health insurance becomes less attractive to prospective employees and ceases to be an effective incentive to said employees. In other words, health insurance has traditionally been a perk, an extra, but not a right.

    Let's turn it around. Why should the liberal people get to dictate to the conservative exactly what he or she will offer as an employment incentive to his/her employees. It is an interference into the conservative's religious freedom of conscience to do so when he is being forced to violate his most deeply held beliefs just to stay in business. Where is the balance of rights? Why so one-sided?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    March 26, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    1-Go buy some birth control.

    2- Or get a job not in a store selling christian fish from china

    3- stop trying to get the government to make laws to give you stuff

    3- realize that the government has a poor track record of taking care of you

    4- realize that it's all about money

    5- realize there are 100 worse things in society than hobby lobby not wanting to provide birth control (their wages are probably one of those things)

    6- What I am saying is be pragmatic for your own situation

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 26, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Ok liberals, here is the question that you need to ask yourself.

    Why do you want to keep raising the price of health insurance? You do realize that be eliminating this particular mandate, and other mandates, that we could actually DECREASE the cost of insurance.

    It is really that important to hurt 99 so you can help 1?

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    March 26, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    "Clement objected that businesses would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a situation where other employers were offering insurance."

    So then shouldn't these companies offer similar health plans to stay competitive? Many employers tout their benefits packages to lure employees.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    March 26, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @ wrz
    "Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment."

    Of course it seems all justices on the court are letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the 1st Amendment. These would not only include the women's personal feelings about the subject, but also the men's personal feelings about the subject (including religious and political views).

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 26, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    If businesses are allowed to hold religious beliefs and make decisions that affect their staff because of it, then health care should not be allowed to be connected to ones' employer in any way. And texas should be allowed to execute corporations.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    March 26, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @Hutterite

    Can a corporation be held responsible for capital crimes? A corporation is only a person for benefits, the moment they do something wrong the blame falls to a person within.

    Also, I think they like their corporations...

    *also joking*

  • slave American Fork, UT
    March 26, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    I worked with a couple that had a new home, two new cars and take several vacations a year to all places of the globe. They have the nerve to stand up and say that they can't afford Health insurance because the company offered Health plan is to expensive. I agree women should have the choice to do with their body what they want but along that line they also need to assume the responsibility for their choice which includes paying for that choice. Not to single out women I also believe Viagra should be my responsibility and not my insurance companies. We are in the financial ruin as a nation because we believe we are entitled and don't have to save or budget for anything. It is the role of government to build roads and infrastructure and to stay the heck out of my pocket. I work hard enough to support mine. Don't expect me and others to pay for your entitlements. Earn what you want.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 26, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    Red Shirt, Do you honestly believe the cost of a health insurance policy is going to be lower because it doesn't cover birth control? That's nonsense. It will make no applicable difference in the bottom line.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    We are here to be tried and tested. If we take everyone's rights away, how are we to choose. I don't agree with pills that end a pregnancy, but who am I to tell another what to do with their body? Especially if it doesn't hurt mine. They will answer later.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 26, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    Hey "the truth" - "The government has no constitutional power, to limit religion in the public square nor to limit it's exercise in the public square?"

    WRONG.

    Government has every right to "limit religion in the public square."

    If your religion calls for raping virgins and sacrificing babies, it can be limited.

    If your religion calls for depriving other Americans of their rights, it can and should be limited.

    What makes you think America is a theocracy?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    March 26, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    It's amazing the hang ups that people have over anything related to sex. Why is this medication any different from your blood pressure pills? Oh, because someone using it might have sex. It's truly bizarre how much some people care about other people's sex lives. I've got a great idea. You think sex for any reason other than procreation is evil, then you don't have sex for any reason other than procreation. Otherwise, mind your own business.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 26, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    To "GZE" it is a start. It may only lower it a dollar or two, but if you cut out enough mandates you can really start to save money.

    See "Mandated health benefits in Colorado increase the cost of health insurance up to 50%" at BusinessWord. Another great article is "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage:
    Examining State Health Insurance Mandates" by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber. They have a graph that shows the number of mandates increasing, which ironically mimics the increase in costs.

    So, back to the topic. If you want to cut costs, cut the mandates.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2014 8:08 p.m.

    @ wrz
    "Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment."

    One could just as easily argue that several of the conservatives on the court are ruling based on their religious views, rather than on sound legal reasoning. (Would they be as sympathetic to arguments based on the religious freedoms of Muslims? the FLDS? The Scientologists?)

    Or, one could stop a minute, and realize that two of the potential votes in favor of the Obamacare mandate are from men (Breyer and Kennedy), and one is from a Catholic (Sotomayor). Perhaps legal conclusions aren't just a function of gender or religion....

    But to say that the female justices are just voting based on their feelings is the most sexist thing I've read this week--perhaps this month, or this year.

  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    March 29, 2014 6:04 a.m.

    Abortion is an elective procedure, save in case of rape etal. Why should taxpayers pay for a tummy tuck when a person has made poor choices of activity. Individuals want control over their bodies, but they refuse the consequences of their actions and want a KING's X upon repenting. Save some accidental disfigurement elective surgery ought to be on your own dime.