ACLU Chooses Liberal Agenda Over Constitution
No one should be surprised in the least at the activities of the supposed American Civil Liberties Union, they’ve exposed their far left agenda long ago. Sure, every once in a while they’ll actually work to protect the Constitution, but, notice that their name is not based on the Constitution: civil liberties are whatever they say they are, despite claiming that they are there to protect the Constitution. That’s why they so often go missing when the Constitution is on the line, when people’s Rights, as laid out in the Bill of Rights, are under assault. Much like most of the US media, they are no longer showing a bias, but are actual cheerleaders and advocates for the Democrat Party. Witness
On Friday, a district court in Missouri rejected a case brought by a mining company challenging the federal birth control rule that requires employer health plans to cover contraception without a co-pay. The Missouri case is one of 30 pending, and it is the first case to be dismissed on the merits. It’s a tremendous victory for women, particularly those employed by the mining company.
It’s a tremendous loss for Freedom of Religion, yet the ACLU isn’t too concerned about that. They’ve voluntarily abdicated their role as so-called protector of the Constitution in order to push an agenda.
The court decisively rejected the claim that the birth control rule infringes on the mining company owner’s religious beliefs. The court found that the rule does not prevent the company’s owner “from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion.” Those religious practices are different from contributing to a health plan that an employee might use to obtain contraception. This “indirect financial support” of someone else’s possible behavior is not a burden on the company owner’s religious beliefs.
Importantly, the court also recognized that religious liberty claims cannot be used as a “means to force one’s religious practices upon others.” That is exactly what the company’s owner was trying to do. We are pleased that the court rejected an attempt to use religion to discriminate, and we hope that the courts in the other cases do so as well.
Whew, that’s an incredible way to spin the topic. What of those who want their health insurance to have a $0 copay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Is that not pushing their religious views on others?
And what of the notion that this was a federal government mandate that requires employers to provide insurance with $0 copays for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Is that not the federal government forcing their religious views on The People in violation of the 1st Amendment?