SCOTUS Rules Against Workplace Contraceptive Coverage for Women: What About MALE ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION DRUGS?!


Because we know this ruling is not about religious freedom, it’s about suppression a Women’s RIGHT to make decisions about her BODY and whether she wants to have a WHITE baby.


What about prescription ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION DRUGS? Will there be a ruling for company insurance plans to NOT cover VIAGRA? CIALIS? After all, if the man can’t get it up, the woman can’t get pregnant. There’s no need for contraception then.


We’ll let Nina Turner TELL.IT.

I don’t know about you, but it’s a sad day in this country, when the SCOTUS is allowed to become our preacher, doctor, and anything or anyone else they choose to become.

This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to SCOTUS Rules Against Workplace Contraceptive Coverage for Women: What About MALE ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION DRUGS?!

  1. Yahtc says:

    Sid Goodman · Top Commenter · Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco
    Almost all HL items are made in China where there are 13 Million forced abortions annually. Can you say hypocrites.
    Reply · · 237 · June 30 at 2:55pm

  2. Ametia says:

    Roberts Court Embraces Discrimination Against Women, Right-Wing Narratives

  3. Ametia says:


  4. Ametia says:

    After Hobby Lobby, These 82 Corporations Could Drop Birth Control Coverage

    From Notre Dame to manufacturers, dozens of companies were waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in order to opt-out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate

  5. rikyrah says:

    June 30, 2014 · 11:43 am
    Religion Is Dead

    That will be the upshot of today’s completely outrageous Hobby Lobby ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively killed religion.

    I know, it looks the opposite, but what have I said here a gazillion, bajillion times, folks? When religion gets forced on people by government or corporations, religion always dies. People don’t want this shit foisted on them. As I’ve said a thousand times before, the surest way to kill off religious belief is to declare a “state religion.” The bigger religion’s role in the secular aspects of life, the more people run away from it.

    And in this ruling SCOTUS said some corporations can impose the beliefs of some religions on some employees, effectively legalizing discrimination against women and certain religions. If you’re a company owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses, sorry, you have to pay for blood transfusions. No out for Scientologists who object to psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. Christian Scientists who don’t believe in most healthcare at all still have to pony up. But if you’re a Christian fundiegelical who believes completely erroneously and incorrectly that IUDs cause abortions — even though they don’t! — you can refuse to offer a healthcare plan covering that form of birth control to your female employees. That’s what SCOTUS just ruled.

    The debate wasn’t even really about the Hobby Lobby peoples’ religious beliefs, it was about their completely erroneous, counter-factual scientific beliefs cloaked in religion:

  6. Ametia says:

    AND I don’t want to hear any bullshit about a women can just go to the drug store and buy her own contraception.

  7. rikyrah says:

    Re-igniting War on Women, Supreme Court Makes Case for Democratic Congress (#HobbyLobby)

    Spandan Chakrabarti | June 30, 2014

    Today, 5 conservative men on the Supreme Court decided that a core part of women’s health cannot be part of required employer-provided insurance coverage – even if the additional coverage costs nothing – at least as applied to private, family-owned corporations. All of the court’s female justices were joined by Justice Breyer in a strong and scathing dissent.

    While the Court’s contempt for women is palpably clear along with its pro-corporate color in every part of the reasoning, it does, however, leave Democrats a major political opening when it comes to contraception. The majority decision, though it struck down the contraception mandate for some employers, left two main silver linings for those of us who believe in women’s rights.

    First, the majority explicitly held that HHS could in fact levy a contraception mandate – on insurance companies. In its language, the opinion refers to the method of contraception coverage HHS uses for employers already exempt from the contraception mandate (churches and other religious nonprofits) – requiring insurance companies to provide the coverage, outside of the employers’ policies but with no additional cost to the insured. The Court suggests, more than once, that it could be used in this circumstance.

  8. rikyrah says:

    Apathy and its rewards

    By Liberal Librarian

    Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-abortion protestors enjoyed a special status not accorded to the normal run of protestor.

    This week, before the conservative majority scurried out of town, it ruled that a) corporations are persons whose owners’ religious convictions must be accommodated, and b) home health workers in Illinois didn’t have to pay union dues if they weren’t directly members of those unions, even though the unions negotiated on their behalf.

    Within a week’s span, the Court has done more to upend women’s and labor rights than any similar span in any other Court session for the past few decades.

    But this was a predictable outcome of the 2000 election. Once George W. Bush was ensconced in the White House by a slightly less conservative but no less supine Court, the goal of the conservative movement has been to control the one unaccountable branch of the Federal government. Fortunately, with President Obama’s election and re-election, and with Senator Harry Reid’s filibuster reforms, the lower courts are now majority appointed by Democratic presidents. But the Supreme Court has veered so far to the Right—occasional favorable rulings notwithstanding—that it is almost a caricature of the warnings of a runaway Court those on the Left have bruited.

    My best friend, someone I love unconditionally, has fallen into the trap of “both parties are the same”. It’s a common refrain in certain parts of the Left. It is born of a desperation at seeing things unchanged, which leads to an apathy and a “pox on both your houses” mindset.

    But let’s have a thought experiment: Does anyone truly think that a Supreme Court with a liberal majority would have ruled on Hobby Lobby, or McCullen, or Harris in the same way as the Roberts Court has? Would those cases have even been heard by a liberal-leaning Court? In this experiment, can one truly say that there would have been no difference in governing philosophies between a President Gore and the President Bush who was foisted on us? To anyone who says “both parties are the same”, all one has to do is to point at the Court.

Leave a Reply