- "The Court's reading is not plausible."
- "In sum, in view of what Congress sought to accomplish, i.e., comprehensive preventive care for women furnished through employer-based health plans, none of the proffered alternatives would satisfactorily serve the compelling interests to which Congress responded."
- "The Court's 'special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations," Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 14), however, is just that."
- "That Hobby Lobby and Conestoga resist coverage only 4 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives does not lessen these compelling interests."
- "As altered by the Women's Health Amendment's passage, the ACA requires new insurance plans to include coverage without cost share of 'such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration [(HRSA)]," a unit of HHS. 42 U.S.C. §300gg-13(a)(4)."
- Cf. supra, at 7-8; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 177 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting) ("[The] limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom . . . begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with liberties of others or of the public.").
Alito will probably think twice before he crosses Ginsburg again. What can we expect next from the acid pen of this liberal lioness?