[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

[Paul Rumelhart]

Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?

Paul



________________________________
 From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
 


I couldn't disagree more. 

Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's naive to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that exercise of government power.

Sunil



________________________________
From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

 


Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in rulings.  In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.



________________________________
From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.


Great points, Rose, and I’m afraid I agree with your assessment.  Thank you for pointing out the obvious even if it’s uncomfortable some.
 
It’s long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of ethics federal judges must adhere to.
 
 
Saundra
 
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Rosemary Huskey
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
 
Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that we trust and hold dear.  In light of the  Supreme Court decision supporting the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim to be at odds with their religious beliefs,  I wondered if the court was persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.  Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that  uphold the doctrine of patriarchy,  i.e., do they attend churches that deny women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what?  Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic. 
 
In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973 eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique privilege for male members.  And, what could possibly more be patriarchal than controlling women’s reproductive choices?
 
Rose Huskey
 
 
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/b1ed44ec/attachment.html>