The number of times I heard false representations of the issue for the owners of Hobby Lobby (and the rest who agree) was disheartening even if expected. Hobby Lobby is not anti-contraception as I've heard from nearly every news outlet. They are anti-murder. Not sure of the distinction? A condom (as an example) prevents the conception of a child. No conception, no life. And no objection. Abortifacients destroy the already-conceived child. And that is a life destroyed. But no one seems to care about this distinction. Nor is "Life begins at conception" a "religious conviction". It's scientific fact. But, look, this is how this kind of thing goes. Don't deal here with facts. Throw out the "Their bizarre religious beliefs cause them to oppose contraception and that's petty and evil" argument as if it's genuine or truthful. You won't be fighting for religious freedom at that point; you'll be warding off lies.
On the local news, a "women's rights advocate" was outraged. "Women have achieved the advancements they have achieved to date because of contraception," she told the interviewer. Really? Women have risen to the heights they now enjoy by murdering babies?
In her passionate 35-page disagreement with the decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." Her concern was that the exemption might "extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations ..." (the "minefield" she was worried about). She believed that the non-religious self-interests of those who worked for the company should override the religious beliefs of the owners. Religious organizations should be exempt, she held, but "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations." Further, she argued that sincerely held beliefs are not sufficient reason to provide First Amendment protections for religious practice. She argued instead that the protections should only be extended to valid religious beliefs ... implying that the courts should decide on which beliefs were valid or not. Now that ought to give you pause.
The Supreme Court ruled against forcing "closely-held corporations" to violate their religious convictions, but women's groups, anti-life advocates (calling themselves "women's health" or "women's choice" advocates), and even religious leaders are up in arms. For many of these the "for profit" nature of a corporation eliminates religious freedom. Do you have religious convictions and wish to own or run a business? This substantial number of people would like to eliminate your First Amendment right to the free exercise of your religion.
The basis for this ruling was, essentially, the RFRA -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton[1], the aim was to prevent the government from passing laws that would substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The court left open the alternative option: repeal the RFRA. Given the climate against religious freedom, that doesn't seem an unlikely possibility.
Lurking in the back of the whole scene is a nasty ogre that most aren't considering, and it's most nasty because it's bigger than it looks. The suggestion of the court was that if those who don't wish to pay for the offending contraception are allowed the free exercise of their religion -- not forced to pay for it -- that will be fine because the government can just pick up the tab. That sounds benign on the surface of it. "You think it's important and you think it's merely a 'women's health right' issue? Then you take care of it." Seems okay. Until you realize that the government doesn't have any way to take care of it. The government doesn't have a job. The government pays for things like that with your money. See how that turns around, then? "No, Hobby Lobby, you don't have to pay for it ... directly. You will pay for it indirectly." And, as I said, this concept is bigger than you realize because it raises the whole bigger question of "What about all the stuff taxpayers are paying for to which they object on religious grounds?" Now that can get really difficult to consider.
Religious freedom and its defense of life got a slight reprieve with the Hobby Lobby ruling ... but only slight. I don't expect -- with the tide of public opinion against religious freedom and life -- that it will last long. Kick the feet out from the RFRA or change a single Supreme Court justice (the ruling was close -- 5-4) and things could change ... quickly. If nothing else, all of us with (or without) religious convictions could end up footing the bill for killing babies. The upshot? We're happy about this round's decision, but it ain't over. Because we live in a sin-sick world and it's not getting any better.
________
[1] You remember Bill Clinton. He's the same president who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, another fine piece of law ... that the current administration has rejected and SCOTUS has scuttled.
4 comments:
It really isn't about contraception anyway, even with the liberals. This is demonstrated by the fact that condoms are not covered - men do not get contraception coverage. It's all about the feminazi demands for OTHERS to pay for their sexual entertainment so they don't have to be responsible for their actions.
One might want to dismiss your notion as oversimplification or prejudice. "'Feminazi' ... how mindless!" But, oddly enough, the liberal mindset seems to support your statement. The advocate said that women achieved their current position because of contraception. What did contraception get them? The ability to indulge their sexual appetites without consequences or responsibility. Isn't this also the primary issue with the homosexual conflict? "We want to be able to engage in whatever our sexual appetites wish and want your approval for doing so."
And, since they are given over to the lusts of their hearts (Rom 1:24), to dishonorable passions (Rom 1:26) and to a debased mind (Rom 1:28), it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a reasonable debate on the subject, would it?
I just read an LA Times piece that cites several suits from Catholic business owners preferring not to have any contraceptives covered at their expense at all. Catholics oppose artificial methods of preventing pregnancies as, I guess, it's God's job to determine when life is created. Somehow this seemed an egregious thing to the writer.
He goes on to say that there is no way to determine if such an owner is even being truthful in claiming a religious exemption, as one dude made earlier comments on record saying he didn't see that the government has any right to tell him to cover anything.
To me, either argument is sound from a liberty and original intent standpoint. The government DOESN'T have that right. For the time being, one can provide coverage or not provide coverage, but apparently if one provides, he must provide on the terms of the government instead of his own notions of what is legitimate.
Despite all the complaints to the contrary, it is a question of religious freedom. Either we have it or we don't. The early Church did not. I'm not sure how long we will.
Post a Comment