Liberal Forum

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:10 pm » wrote:
Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all.

From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to the whole of it?

Yes, Hobby Lobby was under obligation to do so, and contrary to your claims, they did not base their objection on a 1st amendment argument.
They successfully argued the 1993 Democrat RFRA law.


BTW, I'm still waiting to hear who it was that called Ginsburg the "voice of reason". You still got nothing?