The following comes from a July 8 posting by Susan E. Wills on Aleteia.com.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s indignant dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby has generated so much commentary that it’s “gone viral.”
Yet many of the assumptions underlying her dissent are demonstrably false. For example, she asserts (quoting dicta from Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that easy access to contraception and abortion are needed to “facilitate” women’s ability to compete equally with men and that “religious organizations exist to serve [only] a community of believers” (Dissent, 18). Professor Rachel Lu dispensed with the first claim here and the latter point already has been disproven by virtually every Catholic school, hospital, nursing home, charity and saint in the history of the Church by their service to fellow human beings irrespective of the latters’ faith or lack thereof.
But there are other foundational premises undergirding Justice Ginsburg’s opinion that have not received the attention they deserve, namely that: (1) contraception can be properly categorized as “preventive care”; (2) mandating it “furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well-being”; and (3) these “interests” are “demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence” (Dissent, 24).
Try explaining how these drugs have furthered their loved one’s health and well-being to the families of teens and young mothers who’ve died as a direct result of using contraceptives.
Tell that, for example, to Monica Greene, mother of 17-year-old La Monica, whom she describes as “active in church. She was sweet and outgoing and loved to help.” La Monica and her sister Stephanie “dreamed of being veterinarians and opening an office together.” La Monica started using the contraceptive device NuvaRing in May 2009 and died very suddenly a few weeks later from a pulmonary embolism (blood clot in one of her lungs).
Merck & Co., which manufactures NuvaRing, has now (as of June 2014) finalized a $100 million settlement to benefit 3,800 claimants, for death (to 83 women and girls) and injuries such as non-fatal strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, high blood pressure, heart disease and cancer of the breast or reproductive organs. That’s just one settlement and one set of claimants, of course.
Merck’s payout pales in comparison to the hefty $1.7 billion Bayer AG paid (as of March 2014) to settle 8,250 claims from users (and their surviving family members) of Yaz and Yasmin birth control pills. The death toll already exceeds 100 and there are many additional claims pending.
NuvaRing, Yaz and Yasmin are just a few of the many sometimes-fatal contraceptives. Further examples to follow, but first, let’s answer these questions:
Are Contraceptives “Preventive Care”?
Almost four years ago, I reported that Planned Parenthood was organizing a national effort to get contraceptives included in the preventive services mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At that time I wrote:
“Normally, preventive services mean vaccines, tests, screenings, etc. that are given with minimal risk to patients to prevent—or at least detect and provide an early warning of—serious illness and life-threatening conditions. Common examples: blood pressure and cholesterol screening for hypertension, mammograms for breast cancer, Pap tests for cervical cancer, and vaccines to prevent transmission of communicable diseases.
“But prescription contraceptives don’t prevent or screen for disease. Their purpose is to block the normal functioning of a healthy reproductive system. They prevent a person from being conceived or born.”
Fertility is not an illness or adverse medical condition. It’s not a disease to be prevented from spreading. It’s the normal healthy state….
To read the entire posting, click here.
Isn’t it scary to see/hear a Supreme Court Justice make assertions that a 3rd grader could punch holes in?
Anytime the Government supports the Mortal Sins of:
Contraception, Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Same Sex Marriage; sex change operations, etc, through laws, – – – –
the government tries to force EVERYONE to pay for these through their taxes.
And thus forces us to remotely participate in these Mortal Sins.
Where are the Diocese Bishops on these matters?
1) Do they read the most current Federal and State Party Platforms – which proves the goals of each political party?
2) Do they pass this information on to all Catholics within their own Diocese in their teachings?
If your Bishop and Pastor are not doing their teaching jobs, read a Catholic Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
For more info on the CCC, and quotes from Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis regarding the CCC please visit this site.
The site also provides official Church links to the Vatican.
“What Catholics Really Believe Source”
https://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com/
Pete, you need to qualify that sex change operation opinion.
Sex changes are CLEARLY indicated and appropriate for some people. On obvious case is genetic mosaics, who have some cells in their body that are XX and some that are XY.
Other obvious cases are people with various forms of psuedo-hermaphrodism, where malformed genetalia lead to incorrect gender assignment—-or ambiguous gender, at birth.
What of the case of someone with Klinefelter’s syndrome? (XXY). Such people usually have male external genetalia, but I think it’s intuitively obvious that the psychological profile might not match.
What about someone with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome? This is a situation where some cells are “insensitive” to androgens (rather than ALL cells being insensitive, which you see in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome).
That means some cells will respond (and develop male characteristics) but some will not. Let us suppose that a certain individual woul have androgen insensitive cells predominantly located in the brain. Would you deny such a person sex change therapy?
None of these conditions were known 250 years ago. Would you close the door to the possibility of future, undiscovered legit reasons for people to get genital reconstruction?
Justice Ginsburg is a NARAL plant in the Supreme Court. She is weak intellectually, and is a similar “affirmative action” character as is our beloved President Obama. Moreover, she exists soley to induce the sort of Liberal-Feminist craziness that now is offered as serious thought by the Left. Her Supreme Court decisions read more like political tracts than serious legal scholarship (as do those of Ms. Sotomayor). No one should take her seriously, except as a political mouthpiece that exists to encourage votes for the Democratic Party.
Remember Presidential and Congressional elections folks.
They appoint people to position of their same ilk.