Annie get your pill

“It has long been suspected that the Supreme Court hates women, although it took the court’s 5–4 decision in the Hobby Lobby case to fully reveal its blatant misogyny.

“The Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act forbids the administration from forcing Hobby Lobby — an arts-and-crafts chain owned by evangelical Christians — to cover contraceptives that its owners object to on religious grounds (specifically, four drugs that it believes act as abortifacients).

“If you don’t see the anti-women agenda at work in this decision, you aren’t as discerning as the hysterics on the left who point out, accusingly, that the five justices in the majority are all men. … Senator Harry Reid, displaying his unfailing instinct for the inane, tweeted, ‘It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.’ The majority leader seems to believe that the court was deliberating in the case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. v. The Fate of Women’s Freedom in the United States.” —Rich Lowry, The War on Women Comes to the Supreme Court

“Justice Kagan asked whether a victory for Hobby Lobby would invite more challenges to the government’s mandated benefit package. ‘So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.’ Kagan apparently prefers a dismal uniformity, with everyone in lockstep obeying government mandates.

“Democrats insist the Hobby Lobby ruling will deprive women of ‘access.’ That’s a  straw woman. The expensive part of getting birth control is visiting the doctor for a prescription, and all health plans, including Hobby Lobby’s, offer that.

“The Court had to choose between respecting religious freedom vs. $35 for a ‘free’ morning-after pill. Wisely, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom is worth more than that.” —Betsy McCaughey, America’s Freedom of Religion Outweighs a $35 Savings

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act forbids the government from ‘substantially burdening’ a person’s free exercise of religion, unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that governmental interest.

“That the Greens’ and Hahns’ free exercise was burdened was not in doubt. Hobby Lobby, for example, would have incurred fines of up to $475 million per year.

“The government asserted that its mandates served important, if vague, public purposes, such as ‘public health’ and ‘gender equality.’ The government did not come close to proving that the mandate was the ‘least restrictive’ alternative available.

“At the heart of the government’s case was an attempt to steamroll our varied and, yes, diverse nation into conformity on subjects that remain deeply divisive and keenly felt. Like the Affordable Care Act itself, which was railroaded through on a slender majority, the HHS regulations attempted to crush opposition even among the devout. Can you, in the name of ‘public health’ or ‘gender equality,’ strong-arm those with religious objections into acquiescing on abortion? RFRA threw a cloak of protection over religious expression in all its forms, and the Supreme Court, by one vote, upheld religious freedom.” —Mona Charen, Scope for Conscience

“Contrary to a lot of lazy punditry, there is no Obamacare contraception mandate. As my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes, even President Obama’s liberal rubber-stamp Congress of 2009-10 never addressed – or even debated – the question of whether companies can be forced to provide contraceptive coverage. Department of Health and Human Services bureaucrats simply asserted that they could impose such a requirement. Indeed, ‘several pro-life Democrats,’ Ponnuru adds, ‘who provided the law’s narrow margin of victory in the House have said they would have voted against the law had it included the mandate.’

“Moreover, Hobby Lobby never objected to covering birth control per se. It already covers 16 kinds of birth control for its employees. But it objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don’t prevent a pregnancy but terminate one. The pro-abortion-rights lobby can argue that ‘abortion’ and ‘birth control’ are synonymous terms, but that doesn’t make it true. …

“The Hobby Lobby decision opens the door for closely held companies to deny coverage of all forms of birth control, if they can plausibly argue that doing so would violate their conscience. The decision doesn’t apply to large, publicly held corporations, but even if it did, it is unlikely that many companies would go down that path. And even if they did, birth control would not be ‘banned’; employees simply would have to pay for it themselves. The notion that denying a subsidy for a product is equivalent to banning that product is one of the odder tenets of contemporary liberalism.” —Jonah Goldberg, Liberals’ Hobby Lobby Doublethink

“Hillary Clinton, showing her famous empathy for poor people like her, blurted out her knee-jerk spin: ‘It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.’

“Hillary got it doubly wrong. She made it seem that contraception is affordable only to non-rich people like her, and that Hobby Lobby was seeking to deny its employees all contraception coverage.

“But exaggeration and fear-mongering is part of the Democrat game plan. They want all women to think the Hobby Lobby ruling is just the latest campaign in the never-ending Republican/conservative war on women. Democrats already are sending out emails, trying to raise money and rally voters to fight the assault on their contraceptive ‘rights.’ They’re accusing Hobby Lobby’s owners of wanting to force their religious beliefs on women, yet Democrats think it’s perfectly moral and just to use government to force their non-religious beliefs on the owners.” —Michael Reagan, Getting Hobby Lobby Right

“There’s no doubt that the owners of the corporations involved in this week’s landmark decision were following their religious convictions. Hobby Lobby, for sterling example. That company closes its doors on Sundays so its employees can have time for church and family on the sabbath. And its mission statement commits the company to ‘honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’ But in this modern, enlightened, neo-pagan America, them’s fightin’ words.

“At least they were fighting words to the four dissenting justices in this case, who sounded as strident as ever as they warned that granting such exemptions for no better reason than religious conviction would undermine the administration’s whole, wide-sweeping health-care program, aka Obamacare. …

“Obamacare’s web is widely woven, for it ignores the old Hyde Amendment’s prohibitions against having government subsidize abortions. It encourages, indeed just about requires, state insurance exchanges to subsidize abortions. And it mandates coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.

“Naturally all this is called ‘preventive care,’ in accordance with Obamacare’s abundant supply of euphemisms for life-ending procedures. And, at least till now, the administration has generally been able to brush off those churches, religious families and just plain Americans who have conscientious objections to taking human life.

“Those of us who would choose life increasingly find ourselves part of a counterculture, a culture of life as opposed to the fashionable one that celebrates death by some other name. ‘Preventive Care,’ for example.

“This time the rights of believers have been upheld by five justices of the Supreme Court, so chalk up a victory for life. But, as with life, such victories are always at risk.” —Paul Greenberg, A Blow for Liberty, or: The Supremes Choose Life

For further enlightenment:

Day One of Life in Hobby Lobby America, by John Hayward

Who’s the Real Hobby Lobby Bully? by Megan McArdle

The Hobbled Hobby Lobby Decision, by Terence Jeffrey

In Re My ‘Sexual Tumult’, by Jonah Goldberg

This entry was posted in Humor, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Annie get your pill

  1. Aussie says:

    What can an outsider say? This post gives all the arguments except for one – the Establishment Clause. Yes, I do know something about that clause because it is something that is frequently misrepresented by Atheists and the like.

    According to your Constitution, and in my own words: There SHALL NOT be a RELIGION of the STATE. I am putting this imperfectly but it is all about the separation of POWERS of Church and State.
    In England, the State religion is the Anglican Church or the Church of England or the Episcopalian Church (these are just names for the one thing). The titular head of the Church of England is the monarch, meaning Queen Elizabeth at the present time. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most powerful man in England and in the Anglican Church (the last one was an idiot and the current one is only marginally better). The Establishment Clause was in fact based upon the religious intolerance in the U.K. towards anyone who did not follow the State. When the Puritans had the upper hand then everyone else suffered. When the Puritans lost power, they fled to the New World. This is only a summary of some of the history behind this principle that is worth upholding in my view.

    The progressives and atheists have worked hard to change the meaning of the Establishment clause. They take it to mean that not even an end of school speech is allowed to mention God. However, such an interpretation is nothing more than twisted molten metal. It is a lie and it is not what was intended. I just read about a girl from New York State who had her speech parsed but she gave her speech anyway… the people who parsed her speech claimed that the mention of God was establishing religion. However, that is simply mushroom fodder.

    What it should mean is that the State can do nothing that infringes on the right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The State cannot ban Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints or Scientologists even though each of these are a cult. This is because the Establishment Clause gives the cults a right to exist in the USA. People have the freedom to belong to any religion that they desire and the State cannot ban them. There is much more to be stated here because Islam desires to impose Sharia Law which would in effect tear up the Constitution because it imposes a State religion upon the adherents and everyone else…. but that is another argument for another day.

    Based upon the Establishment Clause, the State cannot impose upon religious institutions a mandate that forces them to pay for birth control as well as abortions. Such an imposition as proposed by the mandate that was disputed in the Hobby Lobby case, goes against the very Freedom of Religion that was imparted through the Establishment clause.

    Women’s rights are not abrogated by the Hobby Lobby decision. Women have choices that can be made:

    1. remain a virgin unless married. In other words close your legs.
    2. stop having one night stands.
    3. use protection before indulging in sexual activity.
    4. give up a packet of cigarettes or the heroin hit to pay for the packet of pills.
    5. consider an operation to have the tubes tied.

    There is so much more that can be said and do not get me started about the issue of the very unnecessary partial birth abortion which is another name for cold deliberate murder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s