Questions for Martha McSally: Jim Nintzel doesn’t get an answer either – again

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics — I am not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.

ChickenbunkerJim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly and host of the Arizona Illustrated political roundtable tried to get Martha McSally to take a position on the current hot topic of gay marriage and "ObamaCare" and – suprise! – McSally is still hiding in the bunker with no ready answer to substantive questions. This is one incredibly ill-informed and ill-prepared candidate for someone who has been running for office since 2010. In Sickness and in Health:

What about gay marriage? Are you evolving on that at all?

Am I evolving on that?

A lot of people seem to be evolving on that. You said last time out that you supported a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Now we have it in all these states.

I believe it's primarily a state issue. When you're answering these surveys, sometimes it's a "yes/no" question when really it should be an essay answer that's appropriate.

Why Marriage Matters Arizona Community Meeting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Announcement from Why Marriage Matters Arizona: Why Marriage Matters Arizona, Open Community MeetingThursday, December 12, 6pm – 8pmHimmel Park Library1035 N. Treat Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85716(520) 594-5305 Why Marriage Matters Arizona (WMMAz) will host an open community meeting to discuss the campaign's progress in Arizona. WMMAz is a grassroots public education campaign to build support … Read more

Protest Low Pay for Fast Food Workers in Tucson on Dec 5

by Pamela Powers Hannley Across the US– and here in Tucson– citizens will be standing in solidarity with fast food workers who are demanding a living wage. The Tucson protest is at the McDonalds at Alvernon and Speedway. Here is the flyer . Here is a link to the Facebook event.  

Why Marriage Matters Arizona Community Meeting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Announcement from Why Marriage Matters Arizona: Why Marriage Matters Arizona, Open Community MeetingThursday, December 12, 6pm – 8pmHimmel Park Library1035 N. Treat Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85716(520) 594-5305 Why Marriage Matters Arizona (WMMAz) will host an open community meeting to discuss the campaign's progress in Arizona. WMMAz is a grassroots public education campaign to build support … Read more

U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the legal fiction of ‘corporate personhood’ gives corporations religious liberty rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear religious challenges to the requirement that employers provide health insurance for their workers that includes birth control and related medical services.  The Court said it would decide constitutional issues, as well as claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on birth-control mandate (UPDATED):

The Court granted review of a government case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores) and a private business case (Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius).  Taking the Conestoga plea brought before the Court the claim that both religious owners of a business and the business itself have religious freedom rights, based on both the First Amendment and RFRA.  The Hobby Lobby case was keyed to rights under RFRA.

* * *

The Court did not expedite the briefing schedules for the new cases, so presumably they will be heard in March.  Moreover, the Court has already released its argument schedule for all sittings through the February session.

Under the orders the Court issued in the health care cases, the Justices are not being asked to strike down the requirement that employers provide a full range of pregnancy-related health care under their employees’ health insurance plans. In that sense, these cases are different from the Court’s first rulings on the ACA two years ago, when it upheld a penalty for an individual who refused to obtain health insurance at all and nullified a requirement that states must broadly expand their Medicare program of health care coverage for the poor.

This time, the Court will be focusing only on whether the pregnancy-related care coverage can be enforced against profit-making companies — or their individual owners, when that is a very small group — when the coverage contradicts privately held religious beliefs.