Contraception

The Left's Reaction to the SC's Hobby Lobby and Harris Rulings Shows that it Hates Freedom

|

There is no other way to interpret the hissy fits it is throwing. In both instances, I note in my column in The Week,

HobbyLobby
Light Brigading / Foter / Creative Commons Attribution-

the Supreme Court upheld the liberties of religion, speech and association enshrined in the First Amendment. But it did so on grounds so narrow so as to not even be worth chugging a Sam Adams for this July 4.

Hobby Lobby challenged Obamacare's mandate that companies offer contraceptive coverage even in violation of their religious beliefs. I note:

Yet instead of simply affirming the owners of Hobby Lobby's broad constitutional right not to be forced to violate their religious beliefs, the justices ruled in the company's favor only because not doing so would have violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

All that the act requires is that before violating someone's religious liberties, the government demonstrates that it had no other way to achieve its ends. In this case, the "conservative" justices questioned neither the end — provision of contraceptives — nor whether it was a "compelling state interest." These fanatics of limited government ruled only that because there were less-religious-liberty-busting ways to achieve contraceptive coverage — for example, by the government directly funding it as it's doing for religious universities and hospitals — the mandate did not meet the RFTRA test.

Despite such skittishness, the lefto blogosphere erupted into tiresome taunts of fascism and worse.

As for Harris vs. Quinn in which a mom sued Illinois' public unions for garnishing the state subsidies she receives for taking care of her disabled son, one would have thought that standing up for the mother would be a no-brainer for the left. But, apparently, letting her keep her money, according to Salon's Joan Walsh, is a victory for the "one percent" and the "plutocrat cartel."

I cannot do justice to Walsh's twisted logic in a few words, so just go and read the damn column here – and then weep tomorrow about how unhinged the left has become in this country.

Advertisement

NEXT: Jim Epstein on New York City's Affordable Housing Bonanza for the Rich

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “This isn’t even my final form” -The Left

    1. “RFRA was merely a setback!” -The Left

  2. Shocking. Progressives are anti-choice for anything but unrestricted abortions, and even in that case I’m sure they could be talked into mandating abortions for certain classes of people. Excuse me while I dig my surprise face out of storage.

    1. Talked into? Didn’t Progressives invent forced abortions for blacks in this country?

      1. Yep, eugenics was a progressive cause at one time.

  3. I choose not think about these brain dead progs. I, instead, choose to drink in copious amounts in early celebration of some good ol redcoat ass whipping. Brooklyn summer ale is quite tasty.

    1. TEATHUGLITARIAN KOCHSUCKER. I can’t even.

  4. Well, the mom in Harris takes my and other taxpayers money fine enough, her getting worked up over the conditions she gets that check hardly makes her a hero

    1. Baby steps, Bo. Sometimes measurable in millimeters.

    2. her getting worked up over the conditions she gets that check hardly makes her a hero

      From this, I assume you have no objections to any welfare recipient having to jump through whatever hoops anyone cares to put between them and their benefit? Drug testing, that kind of thing.

      1. Actually, no I for one wouldn’t. Take the State’s money, dance to the State’s tune, no matter how stupid. The ultimate solution is the curtailing of the State’s authority to give away Other people’s Money, but if in the meantime the conditions are stupid, onerous, and shift with the political winds, perhaps more people will slowly become convinced that allowing the State this power isn’t a great idea in the first place.

        1. As I understand it, Illinois wanted the home-care workers to pay part of their government check to the SEIU.

          This sounds to me like government subsidizing its own expansion, through paying those who press for such expansion.

          1. Sounds like? Nay, it is.

            Anything that will make the average voter go, “Wait, what?” is a good thing.

            1. Of course. So is welfare and every other assistance program, and so is mass immigration (even if many libertarians don’t want to admit it).

              1. Yes, Papaya, you’ve made your support for preserving the welfare state and postponing its collapse as long as possible very clear.

                1. I am not worried about preserving the welfare state, I am concerned about postponing the collapse of the country.

                  1. My goodness! Do you man Guam might tip over under the weight of all those marines? The rockies might collapse and be turned into plains? The great plains sink into being a great inland sea?

                    1. Yuck, yuck. No, I worry about flooding the country with people whose beliefs are generally anti-libertarian, which seems to be the idea among many Democrats, as it was in the UK in the Labor Party: undermine all those old-fashioned white people by bringing in voters more susceptible to socialism and left-wing identity politics.

                      And, of course, I’d prefer if the welfare state did not bankrupt the country.

                    2. How do you know their beliefs are anti-libertarian? Seems to me they understand just how shitty their societies and governments were, considering the efforts many of them go through to come here. That sounds to me like an ideal candidate to be converted to libertarianism.

    3. I understand your larger point, but if you concede that a legitimate role for the state is to redistribute a portion of tax revenue to those “in need”–a point apparently conceded by Illinois voters and politicians some time ago–then diverting those funds after their issue interferes with their purpose. It’s like taxing unemployment, another bright idea many state governments had some time ago.

      Granted, by accepting state funds in this context, you do in a sense make yourself a caretaker in the employ of the state and thus open yourself to all sorts of complications resulting. But, if you trace it back a step further, the state puts some families in this position by taxing away funds that could be used for these purposes to begin with.

  5. I agree. I realize it sounds appalling, but seriously, there is no other way to regard the lefts insane logic on this subject. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court said that the government could provide contraception to these same women through the same mechanism it gives non-profits, they still think Hobby Lobby should have been forced to pay for what the Green family considers murder. Just purely for the symbolic act of compelling someone with beliefs they dislike to violate those beliefs.

    That is not only wrong it is sick and sadistic.

    Moreover, they continue to argue that “corporations” shouldn’t be allowed to exercise religious freedom, solely because they have found that compelling people to pay for things is a convenient way to achieve their policy goals. What right does a “corporation” have to not be compelled to pay for whatever the left decides it should pay for?

    They don’t believe in liberty. They believe in ordering people around as they see fit. They are tyrants and totalitarians at heart, and yes, they hate freedom.

    1. I think Orwell nailed the progressive mindset: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

      1. Brendan Eich nods in agreement.

      2. Or H.L. Mencken, who wrote that “the Liberals … advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty ? liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them.”

    2. CONTROL
      CONTROL
      FUCK YOU, THAT’S WHY
      CONTROL

      1. GIMME GIMME GIMME
        I NEED SOME MORE
        GIMME GIMME GIMME
        DON’T ASK WHAT FOR

    3. I’m convinced that forcing people to violate their beliefs is a central goal here, not a by-product. It’s a way to conscript everyone into the role of the guilty…”See, you already pay for things that are causing abortion!”

  6. I’m experiencing the same thing on another forum regarding the unanimous decision to overturn the MA law creating a protest-free buffer zone around abortion clinics. It doesn’t matter that even the liberal justices all found the law unconstitutional, the left demands the ability to curtail the speech of people whose opinions they dislike.

  7. The hysterical reaction to these decisions is telling. Its not based on the actual facts of the cases (Hobby Lobby never wanted out of paying for all contraception, only abortifacients; the union could offer absolutely nothing to the mother/caregiver, who is still free to join the union if she wants, etc.); its not based on the decisions themselves (painfully narrow, with the Hobby Lobby case being decided on a statute passed and signed by Democrats).

    If its not based on facts, or based on the decisions, it must be based on something else. The only thing I can think of that would explain this dishonest, mendacious hissy fit is that the Will to Power of the progs has been frustrated. No principles, only principals. And only principals who are closet totalitarians, thank you very much.

    1. The Will to Power fantasy must be broken and beaten out of these people. Only when they are broken by the iron fist of liberty will they relent.

      1. Cyto you’re not my favorite poster here but I have a serious boner over the beauty of this sentence!

        Only when they are broken by the iron fist of liberty will they relent.

        I’ll be in my bunk!

    2. I don’t see it as the Will to Power so much as the mental sorting that we all do, in the extreme version practiced by fanatics. They adopt the mental categories of the Good Tribe vs. Evil Everybody Else and cram everything into one or the other. Thus anything is either to be cheered because it helps the Good Tribe, or condemned because it is associated with Evil. Hence a mother who doesn’t want to pay union dues for getting a check to help a disabled relative is in the same category as an evil plutocrat.

      By the way, after dissing Ms. Dalmia in an earlier thread, she writes this, which I agree with 100%. I knew she wasn’t all bad….

      1. “By the way, after dissing Ms. Dalmia in an earlier thread, she writes this, which I agree with 100%. I knew she wasn’t all bad….”

        Agreed. It’s easy to let loose the take-no-prisoners language when preaching to the HandR choir about police brutality or raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. It’s refreshing to see such strong, uncompromising words on the broader issues of freedom.

  8. Central control must be total and absolute. Anything short of that upsets the delicate balance reaching utopia requires.

  9. Part of the outrage machine is also calculated, I think. Manufactured might even be better. The Hobby Lobby ruling, however narrow, was an actual SCOTUS ruling against at least part of Obamacare, a prog Holy Grail. Somehow losing it would be devastating to the left psychologically and I believe that there are leftist awe enough to realize that if political trends continue the way they are that that push is coming. This is just battlefield preparation on their part.

    From the prog faithful, well, this is a sneak peak, a tiny little glimpse at what insanity lies in store if momentum builds to significantly alter or even repeal the thing.

    1. Part of the outrage machine is also calculated, I think. Manufactured might even be better.

      DING! DING! DING!

      The left always needs a boogeyman come election time and now they’ve got something to feed their War on Women narrative.

      Of course no one comes out to vote based purely on a Supreme Court decision since that isn’t on the ballot. They are still totally screwed come election time.

      1. The left always needs a boogeyman come election time and now they’ve got something to feed their War on Women narrative.

        The stakes are a little bigger this time around (say the next two elections) If Obamacare can survive that long more or less as it is I think that the left believes that at that point it really becomes a done deal. At least, the basic structure and ideas justifying it will live on. Then they have a real stepping stone to the single-payer fields of gold.

        However, if Republicans win the Senate and then the presidency and are able to repeal or at least fundamentally alter it then the prog dream of single payer goes receding off years into the future at least.

        If the Republicans do win the Senate this time around that the ’16 presidential election is going to be like nothing we have ever seen. They will be that desperate.

    2. Absolutely true, but there are two aspects to that. Political fanatics like to be outraged. It gets them motivated. (And that applies to some people around here *cough*.)

      So it’s not just theater for election time, it’s a way of soothing themselves: “Yes, yes, things are truly terrible just as I’ve always believed! I’m not working out my own personal psychological problems in the field of politics! Oh no, I am just a victim of outside forces, crusading for justice! This latest outrage just proves how right I am to be angry all the time!”

  10. None of this, however, prevented the left from throwing a collective hissy-fit. Social media erupted into tiresome taunts of fascism

    Oh God, tell me about it. I entered a Daily Kos discussion by invitation from Julie Borowski because (she announced) she had left a comment there. Big mistake. The proggies were going full retard, accusing the SCOTUS of going full “libetarian” – I kid you NOT. They were also blandishing the word “fascist” around as if not wanting to pay for someone else’s shit means ipso facto one is a fascist. I am still considering becoming an alcoholic to forget what I read. Oh, they accused Julie of being in the payroll of (who else?) The Koch Brothers!

    1. I entered a Daily Kos discussion by invitation from Julie Borowski?..

      Why would you voluntarily bathe in Stupid?!

      1. Yeah, did OM offend her or something, so she tricked him into going to that forum?

      2. I had a blast yesterday making progs argue that women were helpless infants.

        Did you know women literally cannot find $20 to save their life?

        1. Especially women with jobs. And since Planned Parenthood was banned.

          And speaking of old times, remember “safe sex”? The same people who blabbed about that for years are the same ones outraged that forms of birth control which do nothing to protect against STDs are not handed out like candy.

          1. “The same people who blabbed about that for years are the same ones outraged that forms of birth control which do nothing to protect against STDs are not handed out like candy.”

            Er, those are two separate problems with potentially separate solutions, you know?

            1. Not really. According to what’s been drummed into me for decades now, unsafe sex is unsafe sex. Birth control pills or a morning-after pill do nothing to stop STDs. For that you need condoms.

              Of course if people are tested and then monogamous, it’s not an issue. But I guarantee you that the protests over Hobby Lobby aren’t just about monogamous couples.

              1. Not really. According to what’s been drummed into me for decades now, unsafe sex is unsafe sex.

                Well with you I’m sure all of it is unsafe!

                1. The message is exactly how Papaya described it. You see, it’s aimed at stupid folks, they don’t understand nuances. So, having sex without condom means you’ll have AIDS.

        2. or find a guy they want to have sex with who can help pay. I mean I know that Democrat men tend to not have their own money, but they could panhandle or something.

  11. I hate to admit it but Borowski could easily lure me into dark and dangerous places.

    1. I don’t hate to admit that at all.

      1. Back of the line, you two. I saw her first.

        I think I’ve opined many times on here if I were younger and single…..

  12. It’s hard to follow the Parade of Goldsteins – a dizzying array of Enemies of the People brought forward for their Two Minute Hate.

    Not just Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers but Chick Fil-A, the Komen foundation, Hobby Lobby, and of course the Little Sisters of the Poor.

    1. It’s easier for them. They just think of everyone who disagrees with them about anything as the Bad Guys.

      1. Once you dehumanize someone, it’s easy to think of all of their ideas as evil.

    2. “and of course the Little Sisters of the Poor”

      You were asking for evidence of your ‘coming to get the Catholics’ posts earlier today.

      1. +800 dead babies in a septic tank

  13. I saw this article on American Thinker about the left’s reaction and big uproar with a one-page publicity in the NY Times http://www.americanthinker.com…..today.html

    1. Wow, a quote from Margaret Sanger about a woman’s right to control her body! And without that right she’s not free!

      As you can see starting from p. 107 in this link –

      http://birthcontrolreview.net/Birth Control Review/1932-04 April.pdf

      Sanger believed so fervently in a woman’s right to control her body that she wanted “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

      She also wanted “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

      Because it’s all about choice, isn’t it?

      1. try this link –

        http://bit.ly/1gegL4V

  14. Also, the Handmaids Tale is one of the dumbest books ever written. I mean, it reads like some kind of 8th grade fan fiction. It’s terrible.

    1. Sure, but at least the misogynist dictatorship only takes over in a postapocolyptic scenario, instead of simply being triggered by the election of a Republican President or Congress.

      1. It’s best to frame Handmaid’s Tale as the feminazi version of the Hunger Games books. Both are ridiculously simplistic in their understandings of government and human society.

        Although Handmaid’s Tale did give me a pseudo-Latin phrase I like to remember whenever talking politics with people like Dalmia pointed out.

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…..arborundum

  15. It only takes a few minutes to look at how health care costs have risen since the 1940’s, when employer-funded health insurance became common practice, and see that it’s not exactly a success story. Maybe there’s a reason why it’s not done by all those other developed countries that have guaranteed care.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.