Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. wcorvi

    wcorvi said, over 2 years ago

    Now it ALL makes sense.

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 2 years ago

    Ted, the panel on birth control is an extraordinary distortion of the decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., even for an editorial cartoonist.

  3. brine

    brine GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Very logical!!!

  4. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, over 2 years ago

    “Rich supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as donors.”

    -from an article by Stein Ringen, Emeritus Professor at Oxford University, “Is American Democracy Headed for Extinction”

  5. neatslob

    neatslob said, over 2 years ago

    Yes, they are made up of people who already have rights AS people. To give more rights to the CEO or board as a corporation essentially says these people deserve more rights than the average person.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    @mikefive

    Here’s my question: Is it possible to make a coherent argument that will distinguish the decision about these four types of birth control at issue from other kinds of birth control; and is it possible to make a coherent argument that will distinguish the decision on birth control from other kinds of religious/moral questions, such as transfusions. I haven’t read the whole decision, but the parts I have read make assertions rather than arguments.

  7. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 2 years ago

    Agree, to a point. When the Judicial interprets the law, they are in essence MAKING the law.

  8. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @mikefive

    Details, please.

  9. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Anyone who doesn’t hate rich people and corporations that use their power to oppress us is stupid and/or not paying attention.

  10. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Thank you.

  11. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 2 years ago

    @lonecat

    “Here’s my question: Is it possible to make a coherent argument that will distinguish the decision about these four types of birth control at issue from other kinds of birth control;…”

    The four drugs in question are classed scientifically as abortifacients and can be used to induce abortion even after an embryo has attached itself to the placenta, even days and months later.

    A contraceptive is a substance or device capable of preventing pregnancy.

    As you can see, there is a considerable difference in function.

    The decision and dissension is readily available at " supremecourt.gov ". Have fun. It’s 95 pages long.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    @mikefive

    I’ve looked at the decision, though I don’t have the time or the patience to read the whole thing. I understand the distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient (though I also understand that this difference is not without controversy). But let’s say that I (as the owner of a corporation) belong to a religion which holds that contraceptives are just as wrong as abortifacients, that is, that all forms of birth control are contrary to my religion. Could I argue that I should not be forced to pay for any form of birth control? If I don’t see the distinction between types of birth control, why should the law force me to see a distinction?

  13. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 2 years ago

    Corporations are people. Citizens are “human capital”.

  14. Bilword

    Bilword said, over 2 years ago

    put a fork in it we’re cooked, thanks to our supreme court.

  15. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, over 2 years ago

    @neatslob

    proposition 1: all animals are equal
    Proposition 2; some animals are eqaller than others

  16. Load the rest of the comments (9).