Chuck Todd Warning To GOP The Huffington Post | By Katherine Fung | Posted: 07/06/2014 12:05 pm EDT Excerpts: "Republicans cheering the Supreme Court's controversial decision on birth control in the Hobby Lobby case. Many conservatives were celebrating when the court recently ruled that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" corporations cannot be required to cover contraception for employees under the Affordable Care Act. Speaking on Sunday's "Meet the Press," however, Todd warned that the decision could potentially backfire for Republicans. The ruling gives Democrats an issue to campaign on, he said. "Normally ... the social conservative movement used to quietly hope for losses on the Supreme Court because it gave them a political reason for existing, it gave them something to campaign for, it gave them somebody to beat up on the courts. What was fascinating post-Hobby Lobby is how frankly excited Democratic campaigns are acting, where it's like 'We have something to run on here on the left,'" Todd said. Todd suggested the backlash is already apparent among white women ages 40 to 55, who will be crucial swing voters in this year's midterm elections. "These are the women that in 2010, they were leaning Republican at this time," he said. 'This time, they haven't been.' " read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/chuck-todd-hobby-lobby-republicans_n_5561488.html ...... IMO: Yes, it appears that we are going to have to march again to protect our best interests in the desperate attacks against females of all ages. In time of severe deprivation, women were historically attacked in many ways, and this current deluge of laws against women's most private right to decide for herself what she will do with her own body has been taken away by some flaky out-of-touch-with-reality Supreme Court judges ( men) and legislators (males) who are attacking the very core of females - our womanhood. The most recent ruling has truly galvanized women nationally to fight back, and when you have seen angry women on a project, you are witnessing everlasting energy; we don't give up. The republicans have stirred up a gigantic hornet's nest that will not go away. The best thing about this is that in the polling stations, republican women will vote their true feelings about the constant war against themselves. Welcome to the sisterhood, republican women.
Godless Christian hating white women aged 40 to 55 demanding free unlimited birt control? What will they think of next?
He's just a voice crying out in the wilderness, trying to tell you boys to stop pissing on women in order to save your own souls. Nobody's saying you actually have to do it.
Sooner or later there's going to be more than a handful of men thinking free birth control for women would have been a small price to pay compared to the paternity suits.
They did not ban birth control. Again, the lies about this are astounding. Either that or it is just stupidity.
Health benefits are provided as employment compensation....ie worked for. Is their check also "free" money? - - - Updated - - - Just because hobby lobby chooses to provide various forms of BC doesn't mean all employers must. I'm unclear if this ruling provides a green light for employers who object to all forms, to refuse to cover any.
some are liars, some are just ignorant drones and some a little of both. But it doesn't matter. What WILL matter is the extent women believe the BS liberals are spewing about the ruling. Liberals are masters at framing issues via perception and this issue is made to order for their script writers. I think that's the point Todd is referring to, because, using this issue, liberals will be throwing massive amounts of fuel on the "Rep's War on Women" camp fire in hopes it will swing enough women voters their way to win in Nov. And you know as well as I do they don't care if the fuel is lased with lies, ugly/demeaning accusations, or whatever, as long as they achieve the results they want.
It's so nice that F Chuck Todd is so concerned for the GOP lately and is sharing secrets on how to win elections... What a guy!
God only knows they need 'something to run on' because their dismal strings failures wouldn't get them many votes...
First None of those will be responsible men. And second of all, why would women sleep with a guy who A) doesn't practice safe sex and B) cant afford to pay for the morning after pill. Third of all why are women being reactive instead of proactive with what is happening between their legs?
Is Chuck Toad that out of touch? Wal-Mart has 9 oral contraceptives for women for just $9 a month. They pay much more for texting. Anyone who thinks $9 a month will make the difference be win and lose for Republicans with women, shouldn't even think about what Obama Care is costing single mothers who have to buy it. If that's the case there won't be a single Democrat in Congress after Jan 1st.
I always love these stories where the Democrats or their liberal advocates are so worried about GOP chances at winning political races. Who's he trying to convince? Republicans or his own clueless liberal hordes? - - - Updated - - - I know quite a few conservatives who wish Ann Dunham had free birth control.
Oh come on: Chuck is losing his marbles. Women 40-55 are going to swing the votes????? And over abortion pills?? Are you kidding me? Perhaps Chuck doesn't know that by the time a woman is 50....she's gone through menopause, which means she can't get pregnant anyway. Not to mention, most women as old as 40......are mature enough to know how to take care of themselves so they won't get pregnant. So, if Chuck is counting on that small group of women, I think he's going to be sorely disappointed. And no one votes on only one issue anyway. - - - Updated - - - I think Chuck's words just show how desperate he and other liberals feel right now.
Some liberal thirtysomething's feel a little weird going back to their high school for freebies. Can't really blame them in that instance.
Perhaps school would be good for them again. They appear to have not understood the part of what happens when a penis is placed in a vagina and should retake those classes. You know the type.... they were the same kids who ate paste in art class when they were younger.
I know it was narrow in the sense that its only "closely held" corps...but why wouldn't it apply to all BC if the owners find it violates their beliefs? I haven't seen anything definitive that says it only covers certain bcs. - - - Updated - - - An IUD is both proactive and safe sex...perhaps you're the one who needs more info
Term: 2010-2019 2013 Location: Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Facts of the Case The Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees. The Green family has organized the business around the principles of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. On September 12, 2012, the Greens, as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and challenged the contraception requirement. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of tax penalties, which the district court denied and a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court also denied relief, and the plaintiffs filed for an en banc hearing of the Court of Appeals. The en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and held that corporations were persons for the purposes of RFRA and had protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Question Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the companys owners? Argument Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores - Oral Argument Conclusion Decision: 5 votes for Hobby Lobby Stores, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) Yes. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the governments interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, as the principal dissent fears. In his concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the government had not met its burden to show that there was a meaningful difference between non-profit religious institutions and for-profit religious corporations under the RFRA. Because the contraception requirement accommodates the former while imposing a more restrictive requirement on the later without showing proper cause, the requirement violates the RFRA. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majoritys decision was precluded by the Courts decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence of an otherwise valid statute. Additionally, judicial precedent states that religious beliefs or observances must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sought-after exemption would do to women seeking contraception in this case. Justice Ginsburg also wrote that the majority opinion misconstrued the RFRA as a bold legislative statement with sweeping consequences. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. In their separate dissent, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan wrote that the Court need not decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners may sue under the RFRA. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_354
If promiscuous lib women don't like something about the pay or benefits of one job they can move to another. But the oppressive ObamaCare dictates break the free give and take that used exist between workers and companies.
