The Supremes have handed down yet another half-assed opinion splitting the hairs between two half-assed opinions.
Now, Fox and their ilk are shouting from the mountaintops the triumph of justice. That in itself should tell you just how fucked up the decision handed down was. Because truth be told, if Fox likes something, you can be damned sure that it is poorly thought out and internally inconsistent.
I don't like ObamaCare. It is a sad, sad attempt at doing something good which fails miserably in all of its efforts. It enriches the insurance firms and passes off inadequate coverage to the people who are the least able to adequately assess and control their own health care.
But I don't like the idea of contraception as a "right" to be provided. Look, I have no problem with contraception, but it isn't a right, it is a responsibility. I used to buy my own rubbers, I think that the ladies can purchase their own oral contraceptives. Contraception isn't a medical "need", it is a lifestyle choice. The government got into the business of controlling that choice back when the "pill" got started because religious shitheads wanted to control other peoples lives and decisions. Bad decision then, worse decision now.
The other side of the question is what right does a business owner have to shove his religious views down the throats of his employees? That is what started the whole stupid contraception game. Religious shitheads like the "Hobby Lobby" worked tirelessly in the sixties and seventies to kill the use of oral contraceptives. This case is just a variation on the theme of fanatics attempting to limit others choices
So what we have here is a Supreme Court trying to split hairs between two fundamentally unsound legal concepts and trying to use the prestige of the constitution to wrap that decision in some kind of credibility. The case is a choice between two flawed ideas. The justices cannot seem to separate the issues in their mind, the liberals only looks at womens "rights", the conservatives only look at christian "beliefs".
What this case boils down to is two sets of people trying to make the other party do what they want him to do. Both parties cannot see a line between beliefs and rights, they speak of both as identical and interchangeable. Both parties and points of view are almost tragically inept and self-serving. There is no right answer. Truth be told, there is no lesser evil in the case. Just bad and bad.