people from getting contraception. so i was simply misunderstood the question and, of course, i support the blunt amendment. letting your boss decide if you can have contraception or not, seriously? that s my position? okay. yeah. that s what i m for. are you sure? in 2012, the blunt amendment was defeated in the senate. it got votes from every single republican senator in the senate except for one. even seemingly moderate republicans like old scott brown got behind that effort to allow employers to restrict access to contraception. no abortion and no access to contraception has slowly become the party line for republicans. i mean, remember, rick santorum did pretty well in his race for the republican nomination in 2012 which he said he was waging in part to make clear to america the evils of contraception. one of the things i will talk about that no president has talked about before is, i think,
sperm meets egg, that s a person. fertilized eggs are people. so in colorado, as soon as you had sex, you legally would be two people. if a woman had unprotected sex or even protected sex where the method of contraception didn t work or protected sex where the method of contraception did work but not yet, in colorado as soon as you said, hey, that was fun, congratulations, you re two people. wow. the antiabortion activists pushing the personhood amendment did get enough signatures to get the thing on the ballot for the 08 election then it failed spectacularly. it lost by more than 40 points. two years later in 2010, the same activists reintroduced the same hey, you re two people now measure. they changed the exact language. instead of moment of fertilization, it became the beginning of biological development, but it was exactly the same bill. and even with that year s conservative electorate in 2010, still, colorado voters said no
about that no president has talked about before is, i think, the dangers of contraception in this country. the whole sexual libertine idea, many in the christian faith have said, well, that s okay. i mean, you know, contraception is okay. it s counter to how things are supposed to be. he came in second to mitt romney in the republican primary campaign in 2012. the idea that contraception is a problem unexpectedly has become republican party orthodoxy now. it has also become a general election problem for republicans. the republican congressman who s running for senate in colorado right now against mark udall, his name is cory gardner. he has supported anti-contraception like personhood at the state level and federal level in colorado. he supported them for years. he bragged about supporting personhood when he was first trying to win his seat in the house in 2012. but now he s trying to run
this case? and how broadly applicable is it beyond the initial facts of this challenge? well, the key legal point that ought to decide the case is whether companies can use their economic leverage to impose their own moral views on their employees. no one doubts that the green family has sincere objections to contraception. they own a company that employs 13,000 people. and they want to impose their religious views on those 13,000 people. and if they succeed, as justice kagan pointed out later in the argument, rachel, if they succeed in this claim of imposing their burden of their religious beliefs on their employees, they will both be denying the essential moral agency of those women as individuals. they will also be setting the stage for endless other claims as justice kagan said to come out of the woodwork.
whether companies can use their economic leverage to impose their own moral views on their employees. no one doubts that the green family has sincere objections to contraception. they own a company that employs 13,000 people. and they want to impose their religious views on those 13,000 people. and if they succeed, as justice kagan pointed out later in the argument, rachel, if they succeed in this claim of imposing their burden of their religious beliefs on their employees, they will both be denying the essential moral agency of those women as individuals. they will also be setting the stage for endless other claims as justice kagan said to come out of the woodwork. claims, i don t agree with the sex discrimination laws, i don t agree with the family medical leave act all on religious grounds. therefore, i don t want any of my employees to have the benefit of those. i think it s that notion that we let people impose a burden on third parties which is really where their religious rights