Let me preface this with a question:
If a woman’s birth control of choice is to keep her clothes on, should the government be able to force her employer to buy her wardrobe?
You see, there’s a logical inconsistency with the left’s arguments over the Hobby Lobby case. Now, granted, there usually *IS* logical problems with the left, so no great shakes, with this, but the disconnect is even more striking than usual, here.
Namely, (and leaving aside the freedom of religion aspect for the moment) ….if government can’t force an employer to pay for a woman’s clothing, why can the employer be forced to pay for her Birth control?
I suppose that the government might be able to force an employer to buy an employees clothing in specialised conditions. Say, safety equipment for a particular task. But, that doesn’t, on the surface present a constitutional conflict.
But Hobby Lobby genuinely does, in terms of our first amendment freedoms regarding religion, and that, in reality is what this case is about…. Do the left and their big government desires, trump the first amendment? The answer from the court, clearly is “no”… and the whining from the left is deafening, whining as only a 6 year old, who had a toy taken away can whine.
Contrary to their whining, this case was not about birth control per se’. A fact little mentioned by the left in their temper tantrums is that Hobby Lobby offered it’s employees 14 of the 16 methods of birth control, all paid for by the company.
So, why are liberals are upset about a company that still offers birth control and pays their employees a minimum wage of $14 an hour?
Oh, yeah, I bet they didn’t mention the bit with the pay scale, either, huh?
The objections don’t seem to make much sense. Sounds like a decent enough place to work, even by the standards of the left. The answer, though to the question is, that liberals are reacting the same way they react each and every time they find that there are limits to the power of government over the individual.
Now, I hear some say that we are dealing with a corporation, not people which, of course is absurd on it’s face. We look at Dictionary.com for a bit of help on the definition of “corporation”, to demonstrate that absurdity….
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Look particularly at the first four words… There is no case which I am aware of, where a corporation is not made up of, and run by individuals. If you know of such a case, do tell us. We’re dying to hear.
Apparently, the left would have us leave our first amendment rights, and our morality, our religious convictions, at the door… we’re not supposed to allow our personal beliefs to affect our professional lives in any way… at least insofar as it would run afoul of the liberal worldview.
I do wonder, though… if we are so busy putting up a legal wall between our business life and our religious life, is it any wonder that we find liberals forever castigating those evil corporations for acting immorally? Seems to me we’d be better off letting business owners of religious convictions ply their trade as their consciences demand, and let the market decide its validity.
Further, let’s postulate a law handed down by the FDA that mandates the use of the word “Kosher” (or, if you like, Halal) on food that doesn’t meet that standard? Clearly, there would be large numbers of food producers who would no longer be in business, since their morality wouldn’t allow them to produce such food, regardless of what the government says.
The Hobby Lobby case was not about birth control. Not about healthcare. At the end of the day, this case is about the limits of the power of government over the individual and how that individuals conscience drives all their actions, including at the place of business.
And the left is angry about it, which alone should tell you something.
Yes, this getting to be all Hobby Lobby all the time, but it is a target rich environment, from Emily Zanotti, American Spectator:
If you’re still on social media after yesterday, you’re profoundly masochistic, in need of a stiff drink, or both. Take this moment to examine your Twitter timeline for evidence of the following words: “slippery slope,” “minefield,” “ban,” and “birth control.” Use them as a drinking game and get yourself most of the way into a bottle of Smirnoff. If there were ever an excuse for day-drinking, it’s the amateur constitutional lawyering happening across the Internet. Let’s not mention the Oval Office, where the “constitutional lawyer” in residence stridently disagrees with the professional justices on the Supreme Court.
Does registering for the gender feminist convention mean checking your brain at the door?
Hobby Lobby covers circa sixteen out of twenty forms of contraception. From the hissy fit thrown by the left, you’d think the Supremes has just ruled in favor of mandatory female genital mutilation, or something, from John McCormack, Weekly Standard:
On Monday evening, Hillary Clinton said that she found the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case “deeply disturbing.” Clinton added that “it’s very troubling that a salesclerk 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.”
Contrary to Clinton’s assertion Hobby Lobby’s owner “doesn’t think [women] should be using contraception,” the family-owned business covers the entire cost of 16 out of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives under its insurance plan. The company’s owners simply objected to covering pills or devices that may cause the death of a human embryo.
The Smartest Woman in the World, worth over five million dollars, with an eight million dollar book deal, and who commands speaking fees north of two hundred thousand dollars per speech, somehow thinks that a nine dollar per month prescription is “pretty expense.” Maybe Mrs. Clinton can donate some her two hundred thousand dollar speaking fees to buy contraceptives for the poor Sandra Flukes of the world?
Reax, Allah Pundit, Hot Air:
I knew the Democratic nominee-in-waiting was going to lay it on with a trowel — hot-button SCOTUS case tailor-made for corporation-bashing and “war on women” crap? — but good lord. She’s an inch away here from comparing the Roberts Court to the Taliban. Lying about Hobby Lobby’s willingness to cover contraception is a nice touch too. When you’ve built up a narrative head of steam like she has here, there’s no sense letting facts derail it.
It appears the Clinton’s, B.J and Mrs., were for religious freedom, before they were opposed to it.
How did a woman as stupid as Ruth Bader Ginsberg get to an associate justice of the Supreme Court? The Lord only knows. In today’s much anticipated Hobby Lobby rulingGinsberg opined, from Daily Beast:
“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.”
It would be as if Ginsberg had argued that McDonald’s wants to deny Americans access to food, because McDonald’s sells hamburgers rather than giving them away. Put another way, why should Sandra Fluke get her contraceptives for free but I have pay for my food?
Reference the title, come to think about it, Bader does look a bit skinny.
The self proclaimed former professor of constitutional laws, and forty-fourth President of the United States. continues think he is a king and not a mere president, from Hill:
The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.
President Obama has delayed any potential changes to his deportation policy to allow House GOP leaders time to bring legislation to the floor this summer. But if the Republicans don’t act in July, the Democrats say, unilateral changes by Obama are inevitable.
“We’re at the end of the line,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.
Having been bitch slapped some thirteen times by the Supreme Court, I wonder if Professor Obama can point out the clause in the Constitution which allows him govern by royal edict?
Obama’s version of good government. Remember, he wanted to take us down a notch in the world.
Well, this is what happens when you punish success, and move to limit how successful you can be in the name of ‘fairness’.
Welcome to ‘hope and change’.
The Obama regime pimps out so-called climate change, because that where they get their donor money, from Washington Times:
The Obama administration said Tuesday that bringing Tom Steyer to the White House has nothing to do with the fact that the San Francisco billionaire and environmental activist has hosted fundraisers for President Obama and has promised to spend $100 million to support Democratic candidates this fall.
Mr. Steyer, along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, will visit the White House Wednesday to brief administration officials on a new climate change report, commissioned by the two men and Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
As long as Steyer keeps ponying up the money. Obama will continue to sing his tune. Remember the Golden Rule: Then that has the gold, makes the rules.
So, that we are being lied to, that Climate Change is about as big a hoax on the American people and the world as has ever been played, … a breathtaking lie… is now a given. Observe:
Now the question is, why? What do these proven liars hope to gain by this lie?
The answer is simple…. Power.
Is this the prevue of the third Clinton administration, Mrs. Clinton trying, ever so hard, to play the class warfare card, via Right Scoop:
“They don’t see me as part of the problem,” Clinton said of Americans who are upset about income inequality, adding, “Because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
As the Business Insider reports, she made an $8 million advance for putting her name on a book someone else most likely wrote, and possibly even more for her latest book, “Hard Choices.” Not well off? I think most people who earn the average household income of $50k a year would call that pretty well off. That means that Hillary earned more with one book than the average family makes in 160 years of constant work.
Multimillion dollar book deals, for ghost written books that fail to deliver, two hundred thousand dollar speaking fee, and no day job. Mrs. Clinton is just a poor as Lying Lizzie Warrem is real Indian.
Clarice Feldman a/k/a the Sharp Tack, has pricked the regime’s yarn about Lois Lerner’s supposed hard drive crash, from Peter Suderman, Reason, via Thomas Lifson, American Thinker:
The IRS had a contract with email backup service vendor Sonasoft starting in 2005,according to FedSpending.org, which lists the contract as being for “automatic data processing services.” Sonasoft’s motto is “email archiving done right,” and the company lists the IRS as a customer.
The IRS contract for data back-up data back to the Neanderthal Bush(43) Administration. The Bush administration had a contract for data back=up, but somehow the Obama regime can’t keep a record.
No shock here. Mrs. Clinton thinks that ordinary citizens should not have guns and compares them to terrorists, from Bob Owens, Bearing Arms:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.
Mean while back in occupied Iraq, the ISIS was busy implementing Mrs. Clinton’s preference, from Daily Caller:
In a major coup for public health and safety the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has banned smoking, alcohol, and guns in the provinces it conquered just days ago, the International Business Times reports.
Much like her role models the ISIS, Mrs Clinton does not like freedom.:
Moochelle Obama, the Fat Lady of the United States believes the regime should dictate what school children eat for lunch, from Hill:
First lady Michelle Obama on Monday blasted back at critics of her school lunch program, arguing parents should ensure their children eat healthy meals.
Obama said parents and school leaders can’t let children make the call to eat pizza and burgers for lunch every day.
“If I let my kids dictate what we have for dinner every day, it would be French fries, chips and candy, but we don’t run our households like that, and we can’t run our schools like that,” the first lady said in an interview with MSN.
Now Suzy isn’t allow to choose what to eat for lunch, but she is allowed to choose an abortion. Amusing, school children are too stupid to know what to eat, but smart enough to make a life or death decision about the fate of their unborn baby. Go figure!
Snark of the Day from Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit:
Why should the president of any university getting federal funds earn more than the President of the United States?
We hold car dealers responsible for defective cars. Why not hold college presidents responsible for defective, or over priced, college diplomas?
Chris Christie may or may not be too fat to be president, he however is too stupid to be president, via ABC News:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is denouncing comments by fellow Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry comparing homosexuality to alcoholism in which people can choose to change their behavior.
Perry said earlier this week in San Francisco that people may feel “compelled to follow a particular lifestyle” but have the ability to decide not to do that.
Christie said Friday that he disagrees, saying it is not “an apt analogy and not one that should be made because I think it’s wrong.”
Christie evidently thinks a biological urge is the same as destiny. No wonder he got so fat.