mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

I would actually be convinced of your side of the argument if the ruling had been unanimous or with one, even two dissenting opinions. In the case, this did not happen. The 5-4 split of the court, indicates the ruling was contentious, therefore any comprehensive analysis requires an examination of the dissent. Pro mentioned how he found the lack of substantive analysis disappointing. I welcome the challenge. First, instead of relying on what pundits, politicians, or people stated let us begin with substance: Justice Ginsburg"s dissent. The official ruling in PDF form is accessible here on the Supreme Court website: http://www.supremecourt.gov... Before I continue, I want to lay out what I want potential voters to consider. Pro says the ruling is simply hype by individuals that reject the substance. I focus on the Ginsburg dissent (along with whom Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Breyer all joined) because they sit on the Supreme Court and they understand the law and, not prone to, or have a reputation for "hype." By relying solely on the Dissent Opinion, I hope only to ensure this debate remains substantive. Page numbers are given throughout the course of the argument, and if you use Chrome can go to the top right corner and use the find button to make sure every quote I"ve used is authentic and with proper attribution. Context of Justice Ginsburg"s dissent"free of "hype" but chalk full of reasoned legal analysis Justice Ginsburg"s dissent begins on page 60. She begins by looking at the legislation behind the case brought by Hobby Lobby, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed into law in 1993. However, as Ginsburg notes (see page 61 of dissent) the original intent of congress was rather modest, compared to the extreme view held by the majority that ruled RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) must demands accommodations of "for-profit corporation"s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners" religious faith"in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby" (Ginsburg 61). Accordingly, expresses her motivation for dissenting, stating, "mindful of the havoc the Court"s judgment can introduce, I dissent." Her opinion begins by introducing an earlier precedent set in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey that found "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Ginsburg notes in the initial stages of drafting the ACA (affordable care act) an independent panel of medical experts worked together to make recommendations that were critical in preventive medicine. Their list included preventive services including contraception. Pro links contraception to sex, but if he wants a substantive argument he should consider the several million women that use contraception for other medical conditions, "for example, some congenital heart diseases, pulmonary hypertension, and Marfan syndrome, and contraceptives may be used to reduce risk of endometrial cancer, among other serious medical conditions)" (Ginsburg, 64). Pro has yet to acknowledge that the decision will also affect women that use contraception for unrelated medical needs. However, Pro does acknowledge that externalities may be the inevitable result. So imagine you are an employee, your company decides the corporations beliefs conflict with the contraception mandate. They should just go out and buy it right? Ginsburg writes on page 84 that it "bears note"" the cost nearly equivalent to a month"s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage" (Ginsburg, 84) Now let us address other salient points made by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg writes the following: "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and would override significant interests of the corporations" employees""and it would "deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage" (Ginsburg, 67). This may not bother or persuade potential voters if they accept that corporation"s rights trump every interest of third parties, namely employees. However, here is where Pro"s "hype argument" fails: the US Supreme Court has never "exempted a religious objector from the operation of a neutral, generally applicable law despite the recognition that the requested exemption would detrimentally affect the right of third parties" (Ginsburg, 67). As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summarized a century ago, with respect to free exercise claims "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man"s nose begins." (Quote from, 67). Taken as a whole I hope this illustrates at the very least that the Hobby Lobby ruling broke with court tradition, placing a corporation"s (a legal creation) beliefs over the beliefs of actual living, breathing human beings. So far I have only brought up a fraction of good points from the Ginsburg's dissent but I am going to save the best for the last round. I wish Pro the best of luck. I hope by relying on the actual ruling of the Court, I showed a willingness to keep the debate on a substantive level.