Get PJ Media on your Apple

Hobby Lobby Ruling Pits Senate Hopefuls in Alaska

Begich co-sponsors bill to block Supreme Court's intent while GOP challengers line up in favor of ruling. (For complete 2014 midterm coverage, get your campaign fix on The Grid.)

by
Rod Kackley

Bio

July 13, 2014 - 12:22 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) drew the line between himself and the three Republicans who want his job: He co-sponsored legislation that would block the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

The three candidates in the GOP Senate primary — Dan Sullivan, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and Joe Miller — don’t agree on much. However, they all support the Hobby Lobby ruling.

But Begich told The Hill more than 60,000 women who use birth control in Alaska would be hurt by the 5-4 Supreme Court decision and many of them are angry.

“I can tell you [during] my trip I just returned from in Alaska, this was the topic,” he said. “Women are talking about this issue as an impact to their lives, their livelihood and their economic security.”

Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act on July 9.

They said it would restore the contraceptive coverage requirement guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court June 30, and protect coverage of other health services from employers who would let their beliefs guide which benefits are offered to workers.

Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

“After five justices decided that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” said Murray.

“This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care and their own bodies.”

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, spoke in favor of the Murray-Udall legislation, saying it would allow Congress to “fix the damage done” by the Supreme Court ruling.

Begich spoke out against the Hobby Lobby ruling almost the instant that it came down June 30.

“Bosses should not be able to prevent access to family planning and birth control for Alaska women. This is unacceptable,” Begich said. “As Alaskans, we don’t want the government intruding into our lives and telling us how to make personal decisions.”

However, there are at least three Alaskans who disagreed with him that day. The trio of Republicans who want the GOP nomination to run against Begich didn’t waste any time speaking in support of the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Dan Sullivan, leading the GOP Senate primary contenders, has done more than simply come out in favor of the Hobby Lobby side of the Supreme Court decision, and his opposition didn’t start the last Monday of June 2014

Sullivan tried to block the Affordable Care Act in 2010, when he was Alaska’s attorney general.

He joined with attorneys general from 20 other states challenging the constitutionality of the ACA before the Supreme Court.

Top Rated Comments   
"last year women and families saved an average of $269 on their out-of-pocket costs on birth control. For Alaska’s working families, $40 a month for birth control can make the difference between buying a tank of gas or groceries for the week"

Progressives are so sure of the support of the media and the ideological shrillness and selfishness of their constituents that they don't even bother checking their math. $269 per year would be more like $22 per month. And since this only applies to about 25% of birth control items, that makes the cost more like $6 per month - the horror! And this only applies to those women who happen to work for a closely held corporation with such religious objections - an exceedingly small number I am sure. And by the way, $6 happens to be about equal to the federal and state tax on a single tank of gas. So just this one tax of the many imposed by government does more economic harm to "Alaska's working families" than this ruling.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
“Bosses should not be able to prevent access to family planning and birth control for Alaska women. This is unacceptable,” Begich said. “As Alaskans, we don’t want the government intruding into our lives and telling us how to make personal decisions.”

So, let me get this straight. Begich says Alaskans don't want the government intruding in their lives so he's going to remedy that by passing a bill to force the government to make employers buy morning after pills for Alaskans?

That's a very interesting way of minimizing government intrusions. Wouldn't it make more sense to repeal the ACA which is tremendously intrusive in the lives of all Americans and let women who want morning after pills simply buy them directly in the marketplace? Or avoid the need for them in the first place by using contraceptives that prevent fertilization? Or even practicing abstinence except when they want children?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period"

Access to health care? What? Access to health care means being able to see a doctor. Oh, you mean insurance? No, that would be a financial hedge against unforeseen calamity. Oh, you mean coverage. A system of payment. So, this is actually all about who pays the bill, right?

And a further note: A pregnant woman is not sick. She's healthy. An abortifacient is not designed to make her well. It is designed to make her not pregnant. That's not health care, either.

Of course, it's the purposeful misuse of terminology which is driving this. Misrepresent it, in order to drive idiots to the voting booth to vote for Democrats. "It's the stupid people, stupid!"
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (22)
All Comments   (22)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
HELLO MARK BEGICH,
600,000 ALASKANS are being harmed by Obamacare and having their God given rights infringed on by big government, and YOU voted to IMPOSE Obamacare on us, YOU were the deciding vote.

Going to be good to vote for your opponent and replace you in November, you hypocritical commie tool.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Women who want "morning after" bills can buy them, they just can't ask their employer, Hobby Lobby, to pay for them. (Sandra Fluke complained because she wants the taxpayer to pay for her contraceptives, another selfish idiot.)
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The reality is that anybody who was exercised about the Hobby Lobby decision was going to vote for Begich anyway. Alaska has a small but loud and shrill left. Most Alaska Democrats are the "safe, legal, and rare sort of liars; they do have a group of shrewish feminazis to please.

On the other hand, the hard "C" conservatives here are also loud and shill. Joe Miller is their darling and the 100% Pro-life crowd are who gave him his fleeting victory over Lisa Murkowski. Miller will pander to them and that will leave Sullivan and Treadwell some room on rape, incest, and true health exceptions and enable them to align themselves with most Republicans and Republican/conservative-leaning NPs. Begich's pandering to the doper/baby-killer wing of the communist, excuse me, Democrat Party will cost him with NPs if it is properly exploited.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
If one doesn't like constitutional protections of religious rights for corporations, how does one feel about constitutional protections of freedom of speech rights for corporations? NYT times and MSNBC come to mind.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
What impact on women's lives? How many women in Alaska were planning to use abortifascients and expecting their employer to pay 100% of the cost and knowingly work for a closely held company whose declared policies in writing are based upon certain religious principles?

Where is the impact?

11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is this guy one of the same dems that likes to see little children die all alone in the desert?
.
Is this guy one of the same dems that supports human trafficking, sex trade trafficking and drug smuggling because he refuses to close the border?
.
When did any corporation walk into CVS and block the contraceptive Aisle?
.
Obama intentionally made government, corporations and their owners part of the healthcare process when he forced Obamacare on all of us.
.
His violation of constitutional rights (in this case, freedom of religion) and his attack on our civil rights is racking up ahistorical level of rejections from Supreme Courts and lower courts. His legacy is now set in stone.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The 60,000 women in Alaska know that diaphrams are not the same as morning after pills.
The women of Alaska know they can buy morning after pills for $30 off the shelf.
The women of Alaska know they have access and availability to every contraceptive there is.
The women of Alaska know you do not go pay a doc $600 and a $6000 deductible to get a prescription of morning after pills....that do not require a prescription.
The women of Alaska know this does not affect them...unless the work at Hobby Lobby and use an IUD.
Since here are no Hobby Lobbies in Alaska...this affects 0.0000 women in Alaska.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
It affects every woman who works for a closely held corporation in the nation.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
But so inconsequentially unless you are seeking ideological conformity. For your own ideology that is.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Huh? The opinion affects closely-held corporations. That's an incontrovertible fact.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
For most of my adult life, offering health insurance was a benefit offered so that they could get better workers without paying more in salaries. It was up to the employer to decide which he or she would rather do and also how much insurance they wanted to offer. When the H*ll was it decided to make it mandatory that businesses had to offer it? Workman's Comp covers most injuries that happen on the job. Even this is iffy as to the employer having to carry it though it keeps them from getting sued every time someone screws up and hurts themselves.

As to Hobby Lobby, who complained about the coverage? Was it one of their employees? Two? More? Who decided to make it mandatory that those people had to work at Hobby Lobby? If they don't like what is being offered are they not free to find another job that does offer what they want? Why is the Government even getting involved in this? Where in the Constitution is this covered? I know, I know, "promote the general welfare", that is in the preamble, not part of the actual meat of the Constitution.

I'm not all that religious but I do believe someone offering a job should have the right to decide how much he is willing to pay and what extra side benefits he is willing to offer by what the market will bear. As I understand it Hobby Lobby pays well over minimum wage and has a really good benefits package and all this to sell paints, straw, cloth, pieces of wood, and sewing goods. I say get the Government out of this and lets get back to work.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"last year women and families saved an average of $269 on their out-of-pocket costs on birth control. For Alaska’s working families, $40 a month for birth control can make the difference between buying a tank of gas or groceries for the week"

Progressives are so sure of the support of the media and the ideological shrillness and selfishness of their constituents that they don't even bother checking their math. $269 per year would be more like $22 per month. And since this only applies to about 25% of birth control items, that makes the cost more like $6 per month - the horror! And this only applies to those women who happen to work for a closely held corporation with such religious objections - an exceedingly small number I am sure. And by the way, $6 happens to be about equal to the federal and state tax on a single tank of gas. So just this one tax of the many imposed by government does more economic harm to "Alaska's working families" than this ruling.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
“Bosses should not be able to prevent access to family planning and birth control for Alaska women. This is unacceptable,” Begich said. “As Alaskans, we don’t want the government intruding into our lives and telling us how to make personal decisions.”

So, let me get this straight. Begich says Alaskans don't want the government intruding in their lives so he's going to remedy that by passing a bill to force the government to make employers buy morning after pills for Alaskans?

That's a very interesting way of minimizing government intrusions. Wouldn't it make more sense to repeal the ACA which is tremendously intrusive in the lives of all Americans and let women who want morning after pills simply buy them directly in the marketplace? Or avoid the need for them in the first place by using contraceptives that prevent fertilization? Or even practicing abstinence except when they want children?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The hypocrisy knows no bounds. ACA intrusion into every facet of your health care is OK but limiting that intrusion in one tiny way is evidence of blatant intrusion into ones life.
Is it any wonder that liberalism is increasingly held in disrepute: its followers are bereft of logical reasoning and must prop up one lie after another to put bandaids on its tottering house of cards.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “Hobby Lobby Ruling Pits Senate Hopefuls in Alaska”