From the AP:
Democrats see a political winner in the stinging defeat they suffered when the Supreme Court ruled that businesses with religious objections may deny coverage for contraceptives under President Barack Obama’s health care law.
A four-term senator — Washington state’s Patty Murray — and a vulnerable freshman — Mark Udall of Colorado — have pushed legislation that would counter last month’s court ruling and reinstate free contraception for women who are on health insurance plans of objecting companies.
The Senate was expected to vote Wednesday on moving ahead on the bill, which backers have dubbed the “Not My Boss’ Business Act.” Republicans who have endorsed the court’s decision as upholding the constitutional right of religious freedom are expected to block the measure.
Republicans have dismissed the bill as an election-year political stunt, designed to boost struggling incumbents. The contraception bill, Republicans say, has no chance of becoming law.
The Dems are going to continue to try to exploit this as a wedge issue. Sadly, most women in the electorate are going to snooze their way into believing the line.
The premise upon which this built is hopelessly false. Even biased “fact check” outfits acknowledge it. For example:
Their conclusion: http://i.imgur.com/89743UN.gif
Even the Washington Post Fact Checker: Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ‘Misspeaks,’ ‘opinion’ and overheated rhetoric
The Fact Checker generally does not award Pinocchios for “misspeaking” or for statements of opinion. And we obviously take no position on the Supreme Court opinion. But this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to be more careful in their language about the ruling. All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person’s religious freedom.
Certainly, a case can be made that perhaps this is a slippery slope (as Ginsburg argues in dissent) or that the cost of some contraceptives may be prohibitively high for some women who need them. But the rhetoric needs to be firmly rooted in these objections — and in many cases the Democratic response has been untethered from those basis facts.
Of course, the facts are the first casualties in a case like this.