The following comes from a July 1 press release from American Life League.
Hobby Lobby Decision and Abortion Lies
Washington, DC—-The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case has caused a bit of consternation among pro-abortion fanatics. The ruling makes the following statements:
“Although many of the required, FDA-approved methods of contraception work by preventing the fertilization of an egg, four of those methods (those specifically at issue in these cases) may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. . . .
“They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges, see brief for HHS in No. 13-354, at 9, n. 4, may result in the destruction of an embryo.”
In each statement, the scientific fact is enunciated that there are forms of chemical contraception that do in fact work in several ways—-one of which destroys the embryo because the lining of the woman’s uterus is made inhospitable to the embryonic human being.
As WebMD puts it:
“Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body’s natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.”
But this has not stopped the abortion cartel from screaming bloody murder that the decision must be condemned because it sets a dangerous precedent for women’s healthcare.
They suggest that there are three lies that were reinforced by the SCOTUS ruling yesterday.
Alleged Lie #1: Birth control is the same as abortion.
Fact#1: Birth control has three modes of action, one of which does in fact destroy human beings prior to implantation. Therefore, birth control can be the same as abortion.
Alleged Lie #2: Birth control should be separated from other types of medical services.
Fact #2: The birth control pill and its progeny do not treat a medical condition, but rather are promoted as a way for women to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, these pills are not actual medical services but are, in fact, recreational drugs.
Alleged Lie #3: It’s easier for the government to pay for people’s birth control so that companies don’t have to.
Fact #3: The government should never have gotten into the business of providing payment for contraceptives or abortion in the first place. Neither is healthcare, and neither is good for women or babies.
The last word is this: Abortion mongers never met an abortion they did not like. They have never seen an act of killing a preborn baby that they did not think the government—-meaning taxpayers—-should pay for, no matter what the cost in human lives or women’s health.
The least they could do is tell the truth.
The following comes from a July 1 posting on the website of the New Yorker magazine.
A Very Bad Ruling on Hobby Lobby
Posted by Amy Davidson
“The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a strong dissent from a 5-4 ruling, issued by the Supreme Court on Monday, in favor of Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation that runs a chain of craft stores and wanted an exemption from part of the Affordable Care Act because it was, its owners said, against their religion. In particular, the owners were unwilling to pay for coverage for certain contraceptives. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that he had “no trouble” concluding that this sort of insurance coverage “substantially burdened” the owners of Hobby Lobby—burdened them morally, if not financially. The government, he wrote, needed to find another way; Hobby Lobby could ignore the law.
Hobby Lobby’s defenders have emphasized that this is a very particular case: the Greens, the company’s owners, are devout, and they are only objecting to four contraceptives. Alito noted that churches and other religious non-profits already have an exemption from this aspect of Obamacare; he figured there were ways for the government to make sure the women working for Hobby Lobby got contraception without making the company pay. What could be the broader harm in letting these pious people off the hook?
To start with, who else is off the hook, or will be? What other companies can ignore which other laws on what real or dreamed-up religious grounds? That is something the majority decision in Hobby Lobby leaves shockingly undefined. Ginsburg called it “a decision of startling breadth,” one that could allow for-profit corporations to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Alito, in his opinion, denies this; so does Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence. But neither does so persuasively: their reassurance about the protections against what Ginsburg calls “the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce” come down to, in Alito’s case, shrugs about how nothing alarming has shown up on the Court’s docket yet and, in Kennedy’s, the belief that everyone will be sensible about this. But if there hasn’t been a wave of cases there also hasn’t been a precedent like this—and now there is. And good sense has never been much of a reliable restraint. This suggests that the majority is either being disingenuous about how broad its ruling is or is blind to its own logic. As Ginsburg notes, religious objections to, say, vaccines are neither as theoretical nor as easily put aside as the majority pretends.
Nor is science much of a constraint. Hobby Lobby is really asserting two religious beliefs: that abortion is immoral and that the kinds of contraception it doesn’t want to pay for are, in fact, a form of abortion, even though the scientific evidence says they are not. The majority defers to both of these beliefs.
Can a for-profit corporation even have religious beliefs—can it be a person acting out of sacred conviction, in the sense of either the First Amendment or the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law Hobby Lobby cites)? Alito doesn’t see why not; it doesn’t seem fair to him that the owners of a business should have to forgo either identifying its religious rights with their own “or the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.” But corporations create a legal separation between owners and businesses that protects them in many ways; why is the upside a presumptive right and not any downside?…
The decision is limited to “closely held” corporations, that is, ones for which five or fewer owners control more than fifty per cent of the stock, but that is not much of a limit; as Ginsburg writes, “closely held” is not synonymous with “small.” Cargill is closely held, and it “takes in more than $136 billion in revenues and employs some 140,000 persons.” (What if the owners have differing religious beliefs? Alito, in one of this decision’s many invitations to litigation, says “state corporate law” will help.) And anyway, Alito writes, there is nothing here that precludes a publicly held company, of any size, from bringing a suit making the exact same claim: since Hobby Lobby and another company involved in the case, Conestoga, are not in that category, the Court didn’t make a judgment on them either way. That may be next.
To read the entire New Yorker posting, click here.
Ginsburg is so far left she is bent in that direction. The day will come soon that she will have to stand judgement. I pray for her immortal soul…..doesn’t look good for her…..but who knows, she may repent!?
SandraD, Ginsberg is jewish, and I suspect that you would make a claim that she must repent and become baptised in the Catholic Church for her to be eligible for eternal life. Given that she is unlikely to do so, why do you even pray for her soul?
Why shouldn’t she repent YFC,, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS,, this is still a Church teaching…
You might want to check in with The Pope Francis on that one…
No Pope change Church doctrine YFC,…so its still in effect…sorry…
I did, and “outside the Church there is no salvation” is still Catholic teaching as per the Pope’s very own website!
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (CCC 846)
For one thing, she doesn’t speak italian. So far as I know.
There is no salvation without the Church. Pope Francis can’t change that, and if it weren’t true, there wouldn’t be any need for his job.
Its never meant that only Catholics can be saved. Dimas comes to mind, obviously.
“EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS” is Latin (the official language of the Church). not Italian.
So much for that self-proclaimed Catholicism.
This decision is pretty broad. It seems to suggest a closely held corporation can ignore any law which transgresses an owners sincere religious beliefs. It could possibly be used to oppose civil laws that invalidate polygamy, as long as the challenger holds a sincere religious belief in support of polygamy.
Nonsense! Marriage equality is between one man and one woman — all else is lopsided.
In the USA all religions are against polygamy.
People would not be able to prove that they are merely making things up to suit their own desired lifestyle. Religious beliefs are not new since the Supreme Court Ruling. People must be able to prove these beliefs.
Sandra have you ever heard of the polygamist sects that claim to be the remant of the Mormon faith? They made quite a lot of news a few years ago. Perhaps you forgot about them?
Stop the fear mongering, you who call yourself YFC. Do you really think most of the Mormon, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish and multitude of other women in this country would put up with such a thing. If you do, you are more disturbed than I thought.
You are too funny Anne T. Fear mongering? All I said was that there ARE polygamist religious sects. Apparently, reminding readers of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs amounts to fear mongering?
Good on ya for calling out YFC’s fear mongering, Anne T.
hahaha Anne T good comments!
They have been outlawed by the Official Mormon Church.
Further, in many cases those outlawed people are practicing child abuse (under age 18) which will not stand.
Uh maybe Sandra this idea has been outlawed by the mainstream Mormon Church, but this group is still a religion, and one which would be a part of your blanket statement at about 5 pm yesterday, when you said, “In the USA all religions are against polygamy.”
Ahh, who are we to penalize people for who, and how, they love? I give polygamy about 20 years to mainstream acceptance.
Let them pay for their own Mortal Sins of Contraception (and Abortion).
If they do not life the benefits where they work, let them find a job elsewhere.
People must take responsibility for their own actions.
But Beth, to take responsibility for their actions would require them to think with their brains instead of their sexual organs, as well as that part of the anatomy they sit on, which precludes being able to do much of anything but think about sex, live for it, marry for it and be ruled by it, til death do us part.
God bless Holly Lobby! I really admire their convictions to fight the good fight. It really does set out an excellent witness.
“Anonymous” and “Your Fellow Catholic”: Nice to see that you are both reading the talking points from the Liberal Homofascist Gazette. Hobby Lobby is a decision purposefully held to its limited facts. Whether it goes further, say to cover non-profits, and publicly held corporations, and whether its holding goes beyond the abortion-producing birth control items at issue, are certainly issues for further litigation (and cases are already steaming along). Your points actually parrot the Democratic Party’s own foaming-at-the-mouth response to the case. Regardless, they are pointless, and wrong, and irrelevant. If you want to trip down the “what-if” pages of judicial decision-making, take a look at Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), where he rightly points out that if the government can no longer make and enforce moral choices then it is unlikely that laws against things like bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, bestiality, and other sexual actions, could withstand judicial scrutiny (yes, polygamy is likely among them). Your comments, and their underlying intent, are truly execrable.
The government can pass any law violating the religious beliefs of anybody as long as it is willing to apply “strict scrutiny” (compelling government interest, narrowly tailored remedy, least restrictive means”) to its application.
Ginsberg’s screed and all of the polygamy-related horror stories related here simply ignore that to score political points.
You’ve got it wrong, friend. The government does not need to apply strict scrutiny. The Court applies strict scrutiny to determine if the givernment had a compelling interest for the regulation. If there is a compelling government interest, then the court looks at the application of the law to see if it is narrowly tailored.
To apply it to a case challenging civil laws that ban polygamy:
Compelling government interest: protecting women.
Narrowly tailored: no. A more narrow regulation would be to require consent from each woman involved in polygamy.
As a practical matter, strict scrutiny means that the government often loses. Most regulations are, by design, overly inclusive.
This isn’t liberal gear mongering, it’s very real. In conclusion, while Scalia may have been correct in his Lawrence dissent, the same concerns are raised by the Court’s interpretation of the religious freedom and restoration act.
The four dissenters in the Hobby Lobby case – Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor – are probably ready and willing right now to grant sodomites “equal rights” under the Constitution to the children of others. One more justice like them and they’ll be able to grant it.
CCC: Dogma Defused
846: Outside the Church there is no salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
This “affirmation” is from the Fourth Lateran Council decree, which must be understood and believed as stated: There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved. The dogma of Faith.
A dogma defines a doctrine so that its meaning cannot be changed. Any attempt to explain its meaning other than as stated is an act of heresy. The doctrine here addresses the impossibility of salvation outside the Church, not the inside possibility.
“juergensen”: It seems a good bet that Kennedy and maybe Roberts will be on board for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision recognizing some level of constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Sad, but likely true. The direction of even “good” decisions, such as in the Hobby Lobby case, is to limit the holding and make it easily limited to its facts. By comparison, the Lawrence decision completely reversed the reasoning of what the Supreme Court had said in Bowers v. Harwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), less than 20-years earlier. The allure of recognizing sodomy rights is unreasonably strong; to believers evidence of Satan’s influence on Mankind. Oh, yes, “the devil made me do it,” seems funny, but the massive shift in public perception, and legal reasoning, and — also likely soon — complete religious belief, must be the result of angelic intelligence. Remember that Lucifer possesses the extraordinary gifts of angels, against which — without Faith — mankind is powerless. Seen through the lense of a believer, the rapid changes in Supreme Court decision-making is more understandable.
No question a “constitutional right” to sodomite “marriage” is coming. And once sodomites have that secured, they will sue for “equal rights” to those “fruits of marriage” that are “unfairly enjoyed” only by heterosexuals: children. Step by step. It’s how Satan works best.
I have learn some just right stuff here.
Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise
how so much attempt you put to make the sort of fantastic informative
I’d like to find out more? I’d want to find out some