SCOTUS, Makers of American Sharia Law, Part Two

So, after SCOTUS ruled that it's just fine to assault, intimidate, spit at, attack, even kill women walking into a Women's Health Center, they go on to make sure that more women may end up in that clinic.

First, I'd like to apologize for the next paragraph/rant...just that this really pisses me off.
Yep, I'm referring to the "Hobby Lobby" case. In this case, the plaintiffs make the argument that they should not have to offer certain types of birth control because its against their so called religious beliefs. The plaintiffs feel these are actually abortifacient, even though people with MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC degrees have proven that fairy tale a lie, and because of this LIE, they should not have to pay for them through insurance for their employees. Never mind that they've BEEN paying for these forms of birth control as EARNED benefits the employees have, never mind that the doctors and scientists have proven this is a fallacy, never mind that there is nowhere in the bible that states abortion is or isn't approved by their version of god(and we know that abortion has been around since at least the time of Socrates). Never mind that Hobby Lobby INVESTS in companies that MAKE actual abortifacients...OK for them to make money off of abortion, just not right for employees to receive medical attention for family planning which prevents abortion?????
OK, rant over. Maybe.

First, the batshit crazy rightwing law firm shopped Hobby Lobby to get the "name" status for the lawsuit. See, Hobby Lobby had offered all birth control without a second thought...until the black guy in the white house got a law passed saying that birth control would be covered under the Affordable Care Act. Their religious "crisis" didn't bother them until after the ACA, hmmmm, I smell a rat! Of course, their religious crisis doesn't include spending millions of $$ in China to buy cheap crap to sell either, even tho their money then can be used to pay for abortions in that country.

The case before the Supreme Court ended in its usual 5-4 decision with the catholic males on one side and the fair four on the side of constitutionality. The catholic males also said that this was a very narrow ruling, only dealing with 4 types of birth control and only applied to privately held corporations. Sure.

To begin with, the Affordable Care Act listed 20 types of contraception that must be covered by health insurance offered by businesses. The case that Hobby Lobby was involved in claimed that Plan B, Ella and two types of IUD's were abortifacients which violated their holier than thou religious rights. It didn't matter that all science proves this is not a fact, just cuz the HTT's(Holier Than Thou) believed it, the catholic geezers on SCOTUS went along with it since it gives them a hardon to screw over those that have less.

Justice Alito, who wrote the 5/4 opinion, tried, in the language, to say the scope of this ruling was limited, but then a series of orders released after the ruling show exactly the opposite of "narrow".

The first two dealt with 2 corporations (Autocam and Eden Foods), having catholic owners, by vacating the decisions of the US Appeals Court and said that the Appeals court must rehear the cases due to the Holly Lobby decision. Both of these cases centered around the Appeals Court decision that had rejected that these businesses wanted to eliminate offering any type of the 20 mandated forms of birth control. Even though over 90% of catholic women have used "real" (vs. the "rhythm method") birth control. 

And then, there was the decision that the Wheaton IL college doesn't even have to fill out the form to file a religious objection because it violates their frail religious beliefs to even think about icky birth control/private lady bits. Wheaton College did not want to fill out the form that the United States Government requires which then enables the insurance companies to take on the responsibility of paying for those types of birth control that can offend those of such strong, but frail belief system(cuz they have to think about icky lady bits) and have to be smacked with actual scientific facts that these forms of birth control do not cause abortion. All they have to do is write a letter to HHS, saying, "Bad voo doo for religious people" or something like that.

So, with these decisions, the so-called "narrow ruling" has been broadened considerably and SCOTUS has determined that its OK to discriminate against preventative health care for women. You know the old Dred Scott decision? Separate but equal? Yep, this decision feeds on that type of bad decision of the past.

There is an up side to this. The last time that the right wing treated women in this manner, that we didn't count as much as white males and didn't deserve the protection of laws, we came out and voted. Against them. Hard. So, I hope to see many many women using their voting rights(before they take THOSE away) this November and send a message to the old fogies on SCOTUS. We do MATTER and we're angry with your stupidity and bigotry.

SCOTUS: American Sharia Law

For the last 6 years, I've been listening to hysterics on the right screaming about stupid things they think President Obama will do: FEMA camps,government implants, taking everyone's guns away, Sharia Law. None of these things have happened due to President Obama, but now, the Supreme Court reactionary justices are enacting christian sharia law....
In at least 2 of the latest 5-4 decisions, the right wing men of the Supreme Court have ruled that women are less than men. We are not worth being treated the same as men, we deserve to be less than men because of the old catholic right wing guys majority.
First the Massachusetts case: The Supreme Court, in a 5/4 decision(like that's a surprise) declared the Massachusetts buffer zone of 35 feet at abortion clinics against the constitution because it did not allow the protesters their right of free speech. By the way, the Supreme Court is just fine with a 100 foot buffer zone at the Supreme Court...hmmm.....
The reason this law was enacted at 35 feet was due to murders that occurred at the hand of those people who allegedly value live fetuses, but have no problem killing live men and women who feel they have the ability to make decisions for themselves...or work at a clinic. So SCOTUS seems to feel that its more important for protesters to be able to scream and spit into the faces of women than the women's right to safety and LIFE. Oh I forget, only fetuses have a right to life. And, as I said before,  the Supreme Court buffer zone is almost 3 times that of MA abortion clinic, 100 feet. Guess if we have something to say to justices, we need a bullhorn...or maybe they have psychic, mind reading abilities.
Although the anti-abortion groups are having orgasms over this ruling, it does not take down every state's buffer rule(most are less than 35 feet), but they feel they're mowing them all down. Even tho the ruling does state that the Massachusetts zone was being found unconstitutional because of the length. Not like the groups understand nuance or anything after they hear "we win"....
So, after SCOTUS ruled that it's just fine to assault, intimidate, spit at, attack, even kill women walking into a Women's Health Center, they go on to make sure that more women may end up in that clinic.
But, remember those old guys who voted against a safety zone for women and workers? They feel that they still deserve a 100 foot safety zone from The People.

The Political Right's War on Healthcare for Citizens

Again, during this campaign we have seen and heard Republicons' vitriolic babble on what they're gonna do when they are in control....repeal health care is # 1 on their list(and 1.5 is the Lily Ledbetter act, 2 is defund schools...). They say this because it will be so much better under them (hmmm.....I remember Shrub, Bush I, King Ronnie..nope very much not better for women), but just for debate's sake, I'll decide not to say they're just lying...I mean they are the party that wants schools to get rid of teaching critical thinking skills...so instead of just laughing at their babble, how about tearing it apart with facts and logic, something the 'cons are very lacking:

So, first the evil ObamaCare...or its real name, the Affordable Care Act..Repeal that and women can get insurance easily, right? Wrong.

The ACA provides free screenings for many basic items for men women and children, although I will highlight women and children: mamograms(and breast cancer chemoprevention counseling is she's high risk) being one of the most important, birth control another.  But also, depression, diabetes 2, cholesterol, blood pressure screening are included for basic health concerns. All normal immunizations for children are covered(the ones that children need to go to school). Also, an annual free well-person visit.

Also included for women are screenings for gestational diabetes, HIV, HPV, Hepatitis B, STD(screening/counseling--obviously this is for both genders), Rh Incompatibility, tabacco use, Osteoporosis, folic acid supplements, anemia screening, cervical cancer, domestic/interpersonal violence screening and counseling and breastfeeding counseling

For children? Some of the screenings are: autism, blood pressure, depression, alcohol/drug use assessments for teens, behavioral assessments for all ages, developmental screening, dyslipidemia(if at risk of lipid disorders), hemoglobin screening, lead screening TB testing, vision screening, medical history, obesity screening/counseling. Also many tests for newborns such as: congenital hypothyroidism, hearing, hemoglobinopathies, PKU.

And why is care for children listed in my post about women? Because even if the child lives in a 2-parent household, mothers are the ones that take time off from work for children's health care issues, whether that issue is a doctor's visit, sitting around in a county health center(bring a book and stuff for child to do) or a child's illness. Yes, I know there's that one dad out of thousands that stays home with the kids or the 2 dads out of thousands that shares childcare equally with mom, but they are not in the majority. Not...even...close. It's gotten better, but women still make most of the decisions on many of these issues and spend more time on children's healthcare.

Just this July, people and companies started receiving rebate checks from the Insurance companies due to the Medical Loss Ratio section of the ACA. See, it is now law that Insurance companies must use at least 80%(85% for large companies) of the premium paid for health care. Up until this law, Insurance companies were using maybe 70% for health care, the other 30% was used for "administrative costs"...you know, marketing, those so-called seminars to Costa Rica? Or the bonuses/raises/outlandish salaries paid to the upper echelon of the corporate structure. For comparison, Medicare spends under 5% for Administration costs, Veterans Affairs is under 3% and both of these programs have a much higher patient approval rating than private insurance companies. The ACA also allows children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, giving the kids a bit of breathing room after college and parents some peace of mind about the "baby". From personal experience this has been great for my son who was laid off(he worked with the developmentally disabled in schools), but could still access my insurance for a root canal, glasses and allergies.

Did you know that some insurance companies considered pregnancy as a pre-existing condition? No, not that you are pregnant and looking for insurance...you had been pregnant in the past and may become pregnant again so we won't insure you. Under the ACA this practice is illegal. As of July, 2010 children must be covered and no pre-existing condition denials are legal. In 2014 all use of pre-existing crap is no more.

Also, because of that silly pregnancy stuff, women pay higher insurance rates than men in most states. Again, this is now illegal.

Since the takeover of the House of Representatives by the bats**t crazy teabaggers(who even hold their own Speaker hostage), the House has voted 33 times to repeal health care for Americans...oh, and not one vote on any other Jobs bill....

And how does the Romney/Ryan ticket want to handle this? Annihilate it! Those families don't deserve nuthin'!

The Romney/Ryan ticket, along with the Republicons, have promised to repeal the ACA right after he's declared president. And what does he want to do to replace? Well, that's the question, isn't it? "ObamaCare" was fashioned from a republican view--Bob Dole's plan, Heritage plan and oh, yeah, "RomneyCare"...so, this should be pretty embarrassing for the right wing. Of course that would be true if corporate media actually reported this instead of the screaming mimis of the right's doom and gloom...

His answers to this is "secret", just like all of his other plans...memories of Nixon and his "secret plan" to end the Viet Nam war(which actually ended when the Democratic Congress refused to fund it). Any time Romney mentions what he would do during an interview, one of his staff comes up behind him and says, "Well he really didn't mean what he said". Of course Mittiot is being interviewed on National TV and the other guy is reported on radio/newspaper--where many people, specially low information, do not garner information. Romney is not trying to protect citizens...he wants to make sure that the insurance companies can still live in the plutocratic/objectivist paradise of less taxes, less services to citizens and more obscene profits. Take away the ability of women to get free screenings for breast & cervical cancer. Take away the ability of women to receive birth control without having to pay high prescription rates(and please remember that women who use birth control consistently account for only 5% of the rate of unintended pregnancy--and birth control is much cheaper for insurance companies than pregnancies. And, again, many women and children not being able to use our medical system for less expensive preventative care rather than having no choice, but to live in fear of both medical and financial disaster--and costing all of us much much more.

And, Again, Mr. Romney,

WHERE ARE YOUR TAX RECORDS?!?!?!?

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!?!!?!

Republicons and their hatred of women...or is it just Uppity Women?

Since spring, the Republicons have had their foot in their mouth over women and women's rights--employment, health, reproductive, birth control, and what is actually a "legitimate" rape, now, even how some girls "rape easy":
We have Congressman Todd Akin who is now trying to be a senator, saying that women who get raped can't get pregnant cuz their body shuts down the lady parts...or some drivel like that; and when he tried to walk back from that statement, he brought up the idea that the lady parts fizzle only works if its a "legitimate" rape....sure....and the republicons think this guy is smart enough to be a Senator??? Really??? 
Of course, there is also  Rep. Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD) who stated that there are very few women who ever get pregnant from rape and he thinks that one of the main causes for abortion is the baby is the wrong gender or the woman just doesn't want to be bothered. 
And the illustrious boy VP candidate, who has co-sponsored "personhood" bills with Aiken, endorsed(and now undendorsed) the state senator that feels some girls are just easy rapes, has compared a woman getting pregnant through rape to "just another form of conception".
There's been Rep. Tom Smith, another one running for a senate seat, this time in Pennsylvania who compared rape to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but these are the ones that are crazy enough to make it to national tv and many of these have been kind of swept under the rug as just some of the more extreme views....pay no attention, dear women voters...we're not really that far out. We'll not take away your rights...well. only the ones we don't agree with.
But...then...look at what many of the state legislatures have been busy with: personhood bills(these not only attack abortion rights, but also birth control and in-vitro fertilization); when there is a referendum on ballots about personhood, its voted down by a large margin, but when taken up in the state assemblies? It is usually passes at least one house...and usually by men, republicon men. Doing just what the republicon platform states.
And now, the piece de resistance? Wannabe senator Murdoch. Mr. Murdoch, when asked about abortion said that he would not support any law that allowed for an abortion due to the woman being raped...violated...attacked...one of the worst things that can ever happen to you without you dying, although there are enough women who commit suicide after a rape.
Now, does a suicide have much to do with a pregnancy, one of "god's will" as Mr. Murdoch puts it? Only if you want to know what the woman may be going through as a human being.
The 2012 Republican platform did address these issues by inserting them into the platform:
"We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
Of course that "sanctity of life" ends when the baby is born....

And, again, Where are Mitt's tax returns?????

Bigotty Chicken, but THEY'RE being persecuted?!?!?!?

I'm sure most have heard the "controversy" that is brewing about Chick fil a fast food. But now, the xtian hysteria squad have taken it on as their next crusade...
To begin with, Bigotty Chicken's(much easier to spell) pres. Dan Cathy stated that he believed in only heterosexual marriage and that his company was founded on "biblical principles". Now, if that was the end, there may have been a bit of a backlash, but that's not all Cathy has done with his business...he's also donated millions of $$(company profits, of course) to homophobic "charities" and sites. So, some people were mad, some prolly said things they shouldn't have, but....
Then the Muppets left! Now, Lisa Henson issued a statement on FaceBook: 

• "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over 50 years and we have notified Chick-fil-a that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors".

I think that was very professional, just a difference of values, the Muppets want all people to treated fairly and they would donate any money they made through Bigotty Chicken to GLAAD...and what did Bigotty Chicken do? Act Christian? Nope...they lied and said the toys were being terminated due to "safety issues"....safety issues???? SAFETY ISSUES????? What? Were they worried that the toys were put together by gay guys???? And, really...hadn't any of them watched Sesame Street? Bert and Ernie???? Well, I guess that shows that lying is just fine by Bigotty Chicken. I always thought that Thou shalt not Lie was part of the commandments....must not be one of the Biblical values they care about, eh?
And now we have huckabee squirrel and Caribou Barbie getting some more seconds of fame by chirping in---huck with a Bigotty Chicken day and Caribou Barbie with her hands full of bigotty bags and expounding on how good it is to have a company that believes in the bible....and how they believe in the bible...and of course, the fundies are out in droves because, as they see(or hear it), their religion is getting persecuted again(yawn)...and they must defend!
I would just like to know how being a bigot and being called on it is considered religious persecution? Yes, there is fall back on Bigotty Chicken, they will lose some customers, but that's the downside of free speech, not religious persecution. No one was threatening to burn the bigotty chicken church, just not eat their food. Is the idea of critical thinking so foreign to fundies that they can't see anything outside of their religious bubble? OK, so that really doesn't need an answer.
But then there's another part of the Bigotty Chicken story. Seems that they've had other "biblical" revelations with employees...
In 2002, Bigotty Chicken settled a lawsuit with a manager they had fired due to him not praying to Jesus at a training seminar. He's Muslim--so...the first amendment only protects Bigotty's rights to be free from religious persecution and, in fact, allows them to persecute others?
And right now, there is a woman who has filed a lawsuit, stating that she was fired because the manager decided she should be a stay at home mother....and replaced her with a man. Up until this time, her job performance was rated as satisfactory or higher....so, gender discrimination is just part of Bigotty's religious rights????
Yes, that's only two claims, but usually, when dealing with fast food places, most people don't have the time or money to file suits...many more around, just not filed.
And why is it that its just find for the Million Mom March(or 20 people with computers) can demand a boycott on JC Penney's for having Ellen DeGeneres advertise their products, but its not OK for liberal folk to boycott Bigotty Chicken? Oh, again, I guess its that Constitution that they feel only covers them...
What is ironic is that although there were a couple of politicians who came out about refusing to allow Bigotty Chicken in, they've all apologized and said that they didn't mean they'd discriminate...after the ACLU and Mother Jone's mag came out telling them they were wrong, that was illegal, but Bigotty Chicken is still playing the poor me card.
Me? I've only been at Chic-fil-a once and found the place a bit horrifying...very loud music--xtian metal--screaming about eating the body and blood of Christ...right as I took a bite out of an overcooked, only warm sandwich....I decided right there I was never going back. Church's and Popeye's have much better food and I'm not forced to have my eardrums blown out about somebody else's sick fairy tales. See, I can do that, I don't have to eat or spend my money at places I feel aren't worth it...and that's all a boycott is sayin'.
Peace.