General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: why I suspect reaction to Hobby Lobby is somewhat hair-on-fire [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)It's hard to distract women from the prospect of their own slaughter by wire hanger or butchering abortionists or self administered drugs.
It may be hard for males like you and the OP to get that, but no one is stopping you from drawing more attention to the slaughter Harris will wreak on women.
Given you are worried about the slaughter that Harris will wreak on women, go for it.
About Harris:
In the case of Harris v. Quinn, the court's five conservative justices ruled that home-care workers in Illinoissuch as the lead plaintiff, Pam Harriscannot be forced to pay dues to a union if they're not union members because they are not full-fledged public employees like cops, firefighters, and teachers.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/supreme-court-harris-quinn-unions-right-to-work
While I have not read the Harris opinion, I am still more worried about the literal slaughter Holly Hobby could lead to before very long.
Both my parents were union members and I was a union member, whenever I worked in a category that unions could represent. Been grateful to and wildly supportive of unions since I was old enough to say the word "union." I still see eroding the right to even contraception as more of a danger to both men and women than deciding that people who care for relatives are not public employees and therefore are not subject to mandatory dues payment.
But, that's just me. If you feel differently, feel perfectly free to start some "hysteria" about Harris. I bet you won't get half the abuse from your fellow DUers for doing that, as those posting against Holly Hobby are getting.