Democrats Draft Bill to Override Contraception Ruling

[cal04]

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: New York Times

Congressional Democrats said Tuesday that they had developed legislation to override the Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The bill would ensure that women have access to coverage for birth control even if they work for businesses that have religious objections.

The bill, developed in consultation with the Obama administration, would require for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to provide and pay for contraceptive coverage, along with other preventive services, under the Affordable Care Act.

The measure could be on the Senate floor as early as next week, Senate Democrats said.

“Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who led efforts by Senate Democrats to respond to the court ruling. “Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?_r=1

---

Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

video: Harry Reid Vows Fast Vote On Hobby Lobby Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/hobby-lobby-override_n_5568320.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.

The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.

(snip)
Murray and Udall's bill would override the Supreme Court's decision and state that no federal law, including RFRA, permits for-profit employers to refuse to comply with federal health coverage requirements. The senators worked with the Obama administration, other Democratic lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates to draft the legislation.

Even if the bill passes the Senate, it is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-controlled House. But Democrats hope it will at least force senators to go on record supporting or opposing universal birth control coverage.



Senate Dems Ready To Unveil Bill Reversing Hobby Lobby Ruling
Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/murray-udall-legislation-hobby-lobby

[KarenS]

1. That's what I want to see,,,

A whole lot of fighting back!!

[Phlem]

9. Then there should be a mountain of bills in the works.

[KarenS]

16. I certainly hope so.

[Maedhros]

2. This is what voters want to see from Democrats.

Not appeasement, compromise or "reaching across the aisle," but standing up for basic Democratic values such as the right for women to have access to health care without restrictions based upon religious prejudice.

The key to energizing Democratic voters is to metaphorically punch Republicans in the face.

[Warpy]

3. It will take a constitutional amendment

that restricts the protections of the Bill of Rights to actual human beings who have been born.

[happyslug]

11. The Hobby Lobby decision was NOT based on the Bill of Rights but an act of Congress

In the early 1990s, Scalia wrote an opinion saying that a general law that was written with no intention to interfere with religion or anyone's practice of their religion, but did affect a religion was still valid under the First Amendment if it was general in application. The Case involved the smoking of Peyote by Native Americans and Scalia said since the law making Peyote a Control Substance was general in application it was NOT a violation of the First Amendment for Congress to make such smoking illegal even for Native Americans who had done it for centuries.

In response to that decision Congress passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb. The RFRA was intended to restore the previous series of Supreme Court Decision that demanded that the Court give balance to such general laws and religious practices.

The Majority in the Hobby Lobby Decision relied on the RFRA NOT the First Amendment to make their decision. In fact Scalia and Kennedy, two of the five Justices that voted to uphold Hobby Lobby Decision had voted for the Peyote Case 20 years before. i.e. if the case had been a decision on the First Amendment, if they followed they previous votes in the Peyote Case, they would have ruled AGAINST Hobby Lobby. Such a vote would have required based on their previous votes in the Peyote Case on the simple grounds the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a general law and as such NOT intended to interfere with anyone's religious freedom, and thus NOT a violation of the First Amendment.

Scalia has attacked that law (the RFRA) in the past as Congressional interference with a Constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court. Some commentators sees this case as his chance to show that to be the case. By avoiding the Constitutional issues, Scalia and Kennedy could rule for Hobby Lobby and still state that they decision in the Peyote Case was also correct. Hobby Lobby is a decision based in a Law passed by Congress, the Peyote Case a ruling on the First Amendment.

Thus this is a decision based on an act of Congress, which Congress can change, not on the Constitution which requires a Constitutional amendment.

The Hobby Lobby Actual Court Decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

The Peyote Case, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (No. 88-1213), 1990":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872


Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - 390 U.S. 400 (1968):

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html

[Warpy]

13. Still, an amendment is needed to clarify the Bill of Rights

to a corrupt USSC that seems determined to strip citizens of their civil rights and hand them to corporations and other institutions.

Citizens United is an example of such a ruling, stating that property = speech and corporations = human beings, capable of speech.

I wish Congress the best on writing law that allows Native Americans their religious use of peyote while disallowing corporations to strip women of essential health insurance in order to save a buck, citing a religious conscience that an artificial construct like a corporation does not have.

The Greens can go fuck themselves with that cross they rode in on.

[littlemissmartypants]

15. You mean like ERA? nt

[happyslug]

18. Yes, Woman's rights is a product of the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment NOT the Proposed ERA.

The ERA failed to get the needed number of states to ratify it, but the 1964 Civil Rights Acts only needed Congressional action. That is the difference between a law and a Constitutional amendment.

[Jefferson23]

4. Good, highly reccommend. n/t

[rtracey]

5. I want to see

I want to see how many repubs vote against it...

[joeglow3]

6. Ummmm, all of them

Are you expecting something else?

[geretogo]

7. This would pass in a Democratic country . We are no longer a democratic country .

[myrna minx]

8. K&R

[JayhawkSD]

10. Congress cannot override the Supreme Court

"Murray and Udall's bill would override the Supreme Court's decision..." No, it would not. The constitution does not provide any mechanism for Congress to override Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that such a law is unconstitutional. The ACA included this provision and the Supreme Court struck it down. Congress can override a presidential veto with a two thirds vote, but no such provision exists for overturning an "unconstitutional" ruling of the Supreme Court. Simply passing again the same law that was overturned is nothing but posturing by the Democrats in Congress.

As Warpy points out, it would require a constitutional amendment.

[happyslug]

12. I repeat what I wrote above, Hobby Lobby is NOT based on the Bill of Rights but an Act of Congress.

In the early 1990s, Scalia wrote an opinion saying that a general law that was written with no intention to interfere with religion or anyone's practice of their religion, but did affect a religion was still valid under the First Amendment if it was general in application. The Case involved the smoking of Peyote by Native Americans and Scalia said since the law making Peyote a Control Substance was general in application it was NOT a violation of the First Amendment for Congress to make such smoking illegal even for Native Americans who had done it for centuries.

In response to that decision Congress passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb. The RFRA was intended to restore the previous series of Supreme Court Decision that demanded that the Court give balance to such general laws and religious practices.

The Majority in the Hobby Lobby Decision relied on the RFRA NOT the First Amendment to make their decision. In fact Scalia and Kennedy, two of the five Justices that voted to uphold Hobby Lobby Decision had voted for the Peyote Case 20 years before. i.e. if the case had been a decision on the First Amendment, if they followed they previous votes in the Peyote Case, they would have ruled AGAINST Hobby Lobby. Such a vote would have required based on their previous votes in the Peyote Case on the simple grounds the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a general law and as such NOT intended to interfere with anyone's religious freedom, and thus NOT a violation of the First Amendment.

Scalia has attacked that law (the RFRA) in the past as Congressional interference with a Constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court. Some commentators sees this case as his chance to show that to be the case. By avoiding the Constitutional issues, Scalia and Kennedy could rule for Hobby Lobby and still state that they decision in the Peyote Case was also correct. Hobby Lobby is a decision based in a Law passed by Congress, the Peyote Case a ruling on the First Amendment.

Thus this is a decision based on an act of Congress, which Congress can change, not on the Constitution which requires a Constitutional amendment.

The Hobby Lobby Actual Court Decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

The Peyote Case, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (No. 88-1213), 1990":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872


Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - 390 U.S. 400 (1968):

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html

[regnaD kciN]

14. True, but...

...the bill would have to pass, or even be introduced in, the House. Shall we all laugh?

The fact is, the point of this bill isn't to restore access to contraception in the aftermath of the HL case, but to gain political points come November. If the Democrats can regain control of the House (and keep control of the Senate) then, such legislation may have a chance, but that outcome would be a near-miracle, based strictly on demographics.

[JayhawkSD]

21. Point taken, but...

...if the ACA mandate is in contravention of the RFRA, how is this new law not in contravention of it?

It is interesting that the Supreme Court ruling "did not address Hobby Lobby's claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," but rather ignored the plaintiff's pleading and made their ruling based on a pleading which the plaintiff apparently did not make. Seems to me that if they were not goig to rule on the case as pled by the plaintiff, they should have refused to rule at all. Declining to rule on constitutional grounds and finding a "back door" was cowardly; something which this court has shown a tendency for.

And, as I said in my original comment and as regnaD kciN points out, the bill is not intended to accomplish anything but is merely political posturing by Congressional Democrats.

[rickyhall]

17. The RFRA was totally unnecessary, the First Amendment is clear enough

The RFRA was passed to make the fundies happy, wasted effort, nothing short of the second coming would make them happy anyway. Then they'd discover Jesus ain't white guy after all.

[JayhawkSD]

22. Actually, it's not.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability[a] even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In plainer language, laws cannot force you to practice religion, or prohibit you from doing so, but neither can religion exempt you from laws which are of overriding interest to the general population. If your religion made it necessary for you to kill someone, that would not protect you from the civil law against murder. The RFRA attempts to codify this issue, and only partially succeeds.

[freshwest]

19. Thanks Patty and Dems!

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cal.