Washington Post Upset That “Vocally Devout” Justices Will Decide Ocare Contraception Case
Tuesday is the day when the Supreme Court will hear the case on the Ocare mandate requiring companies to provide insurance that includes free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Many religious companies find this to be against their religious beliefs. And, per the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, it’s horrible that religious justices might decide the case
There’s something that makes the current Supreme Court different from some of its recent predecessors.
The justices got religion.
Or at least they seem more open about their faith, appearing before devout audiences and talking more about how religion shaped their lives or guides them now.
As the court this week weighs religious conviction vs. legal obligation in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, those who study the court say the change is hard to quantify but easy to notice.
My goodness! I suppose Barnes would prefer they all be atheists or Leftist Christian religion haters. They can’t quantify anything, but they know someone who’s religious when they seem them, so they must be ready to decide based on being Bible thumpers or something.
But in what is likely to be the signature case of the term, the issue is not affiliation but devotion.
The justices on Tuesday will hear two cases in which business owners say they would violate their religious principles if they had to provide female employees with cost-free insurance coverage for all contraceptives.
Or, it could be that they’ll decide the case on the merits of the law and the Constitution. This article is meant to position a potential ruling against the contraception mandate as being based in hardcore religiosity, that people who play with snakes in church are ruling based on their religious beliefs, rather than law and the Constitution. We shouldn’t be surprised in the least. The NY Times ran an editorial that was grossly disingenuous, was a flat out lie. And this is how you get people, mostly Lefties, to trot out idiocy like this
Abortion and contraception are legal health care services in the US. These services cannot be denied to others based on anyone’s personal religious conviction.
To use an extreme and incorrect religious pseudo-justification for example – if my religious conviction allows human sacrifice, then by a misguided religious interpretation of American government, our government cannot interfere with my relgious conviction. These Christians need to re-read our legal history of freedom of religion. It contains two parts. Freedom of belief and freedom to practice.
All Americans have absolute freedom of belief. Any one of us may believe in God, nothing or that the Moon is made of cheese. Who cares, it does no harm to any other American. But the freedom to practice any religion is limited in that it cannot infringe on the rights of others.
That was from one of the top comments at the WP article. Liberals have taken the position that if Someone Else is not providing the abortion and contraception, they are being denied “legal health services”. God forbid that Liberals have to pay for it themselves.
Meanwhile, the NY Times is also stating that the ruling could have far reaching consequences if SCOTUS rules against the contraception mandate (which, BTW, is a mandate only per the Obama admin. It appears nowhere within the text of the Affordable Care Act), because all of a sudden people could claim their religious beliefs for everything
Objections to laws based on religious beliefs can arise in many settings, and supporters of the coverage requirement say a ruling for the company could frustrate the enforcement of laws addressing health, safety and civil rights.
“We would be entering a new world in which, for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else,” Mr. Dellinger said. “A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights.”
The Times does provide some evidence that this is simply a hardcore liberal talking point, and goes back and forth on whether or not this has merit. The fact is that the government must have a compelling reason to deny religious freedom, enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Human sacrifice for religious reasons is certainly not something that would be allowed. And, really, this is preposterous. We’re only talking about companies, which are paying for the insurance, not wanting to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization. People can pay for it on their own. But Team Obama wanted to pander and patronize their base, so they created the mandate out of thin air.
Years after most Americans retire, in fact years after the federal retirement age of 68, more than 100 U.S. Postal
MEMRI has the video of an interview with sitting US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg with Al-Hayat TV on
On Saturday I saw the new summer actioner White House Down and found the main conceit of the film laughably