Public Unions

Why is the Left Not Cheering For a Mom's Right to Keep Her Meager Subsidies?

Responses to the last week's Supreme Court rulings show that progressives care about neither individuals nor liberty.

|

HarrisVs.Quinn
www.washingtonpost.com

The United States Supreme Court last week handed down two rulings that are a victory for the liberties of religion, speech, and association enshrined in the First Amendment. That ought to be cause for a double celebration. But instead, the rulings, issued on the narrowest possible grounds, constitute a victory so modest—and have elicited a response from the left so hysterical—that anyone serious about liberty can't help but be a little depressed right now.

The case that has attracted disproportionate attention is informally known as Hobby Lobby, and it challenged Obamacare's contraceptive mandate. This mandate requires all for-profit companies to provide all 20 forms of birth control approved by the FDA, including pills and "abortifacients," even though they violate the Christian (Assembly of God, to be precise) convictions of the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, who were willing to cover "only" 16.

Let me be clear: I am not some super-religious, anti-abortion, party-line conservative. Quite the contrary: I am a political independent, an atheist, and a supporter of abortion rights. I believe that because the mother's—and only the mother's—life is implicated in childbirth, she ought to have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant or proceed with a pregnancy.

That said, the right to birth control and abortion does not entitle women to force Hobby Lobby to pay for these things any more than Hobby Lobby's religious liberties entitle it to force women to pay for its speaking-in-tongues gatherings.

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. What's more, they went out of their way to assure that the ruling applies only to "closely held" companies whose religious convictions are co-extensive with their business practices, not to publicly owned corporations with diffuse ownership.

To placate concerns that the ruling would lead us tumbling down a slippery slope, encouraging other religious dissenters to object to say, vaccination coverage, the justices wrote that in situations when "public health" concerns are implicated there might be no less onerous way to achieve government objectives than trampling religious liberties.

None of this, however, prevented the left from throwing a collective hissy-fit. Social media erupted into tiresome taunts of fascism. Ann Friedman called the ruling a "blow to reproductive rights" that made her want to issue "an outraged scream, sort of a combination groan-wail…while beating my fists against the desk on either side of my laptop." (Hey Ann, be careful: A new laptop will cost you several years' of contraceptive pills. Generic versions sell at Costco for $25 a month.)

Such moral huffing and puffing was also on display in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Harris vs. Quinn. That case involved the right of family members of disabled loved ones to offer care without having their state aid garnished by public unions. Harris, a mom who was providing home care to her 25-year-old disabled son, had sued the state of Illinois for forcing her to pay dues to a government union.

But what in the name of Jimmy Hoffa does looking after her son have to do with the union?

Apparently, because she receives state subsidies for caring for her son, Illinois, along with a dozen other states, considers her a "home health care worker." This means she must submit to the exclusive representation of a government union in collective bargaining negotiations—even though she supports neither the union nor its goals.

Although the justices acknowledged that forcing Harris to pay dues was a violation of her First Amendment rights to not associate with the union, those are not the grounds on which they ruled in her favor. They allowed the 1977 Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education ruling to stand for now, refusing to overrule its conclusion that the government was "constitutionally justified" in forcing public workers to pay union dues to maintain "labor peace" and prevent "free riding." They declined only to extend this shameful logic to home-based family members on the grounds that these folks are not really government workers.

Ordinary mortals might rejoice at this victory for commonsense and a mom's right to keep her meager subsidies—but not lefties such as Salon's Joan Walsh. She saw this as a victory for the "one percent" and the "plutocrat cartel" who could now avoid paying higher taxes to boost the wages of home healthcare workers, most of them low-paid women.

Never mind that the real threat to these "low-paid women"—otherwise called moms—comes not from filthy rich people, but the government itself. For example, Washington Examiner's Sean Higgins recently reported that Illinois has implemented a new program requiring these moms to call the government twice a day to clock in and clock out. If they don't, they are technically overbilling the government and risk being fired from their job as a "caregiver" and being replaced by a real government worker.

This shows that what's really insidious about attempts to classify moms as state workers and force them to pay union dues is not that their First Amendment rights are violated. It is that it turns the whole notion of a safety net on its head, redefining the relationship between the government and the citizenry.

If Harris is a government worker, she is no longer appealing to the government for help as a private citizen in the discharge of her private responsibility. Rather, she is helping the government perform its responsibility of taking care of her son, essentially turning him into a ward of the state first and her son second.

Such de facto socialization of intimate family roles and responsibilities is far closer to Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale dystopia that the left fears will stem from the Hobby Lobby ruling. (Atwood's sci-fi novel imagines life in a totalitarian Christian theocracy where religious dictators control copulation in accordance with their religious mission.)

That the left is made not at all nervous by this shows how little it cares about individuals or liberty.

A version of this column appeared in The Week. An archive of Dalmia's The Week columns can be found here.

NEXT: Mark Hemingway on Selling Obamacare

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. Now where have i read this before…

    1. At some place called “The Week”?

  2. baffling response? Who didn’t see the butthurt coming?

  3. “Despite such skittishness, the lefto blogosphere erupted into tiresome taunts of fascism and worse,” she notes.

    Good grief, Shikha. Must you drag *Trayvon Martin* into this, too?!

    1. At least there’s no Mexicans, pot, or ass-sex in this one.

      1. Well, until your comment.

      2. Latina ass sex while smoking pot? sign me up!

        1. Sorry, but I’d rather snort blow off the ass of a hot Latina hooker.

          1. these days I’ll take what I can get.

        2. I think it has to be gay ass sex.

          1. Straightophobe!

          2. Can’t it be both?

    2. The OTHER part of the truth (Martin threw away the sword and the pistol by his side, before he died, and the cops never found it, bumbling fools that they were), but here is the REAL truth:
      Martin went a fartin’,
      And he did ride,
      With a sword and a pistol
      By his side,
      Lookin’ for a “creepy ass cracker”
      To help him eat his skittles,
      So when he couldn’t find his spittoon,
      He spit instead in his shittooon,
      And shit instead in his spittoon,
      While the cow jumped over the moon,
      And the dish snorted coke with a spoon,
      And we’ll all know the truth real soon!

  4. Oh, I’ll tell you why all the hysterics…

    because discrimination! War on women! Christians are taking over the country! They are forcing their employees everyone to purchase only 16 forms of contraception! It’s out of control!

  5. The left’s response is not baffling. We know, and Shikha points out that the left hates liberty.

    What is baffling to people who don’t hate liberty is why anyone would. I understand it in the abstract, I know that they do, I just can’t fully grasp it. It is an alien concept to me.

    1. It’s easy to understand, Suthenboy. Simply “check your privilege”.

    2. Most of the time, they’re hating on other people’s liberty. First they came for the heroin-shooters, and I said nothing because I don’t do heroin.

      What baffles me is the people who glibly throw away their own liberty. The TSA’s new “turn on your mobile devices” things is an exmple of this. Lots of people are going to be caught out with dead batteries they forgot to recharge, and it’s not going to prevent any real crimes. Yet all of the soundbites are, “It’s only a couple of seconds of inconvenience.”

      1. The TSA’s new “turn on your mobile devices” things

        The unintended consequences of this are going to be Flounder-level GREAT.

        1. fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

            1. Ramming speed!

            2. +1 measure doorway, use chainsaw.

      2. I don’t think that even that is all that baffling. More disturbing in it’s shortsightedness. People value security (both against terrorists, or whatever and the kind of security that welfare state stuff promises) more than liberty that the don’t think they will need or use.

    3. What is baffling to people who don’t hate liberty is why anyone would.

      It’s the fantasy of fairness and order, I think. Liberty is messy to them. There are winners and, sometimes, losers. The winners may be the wrong kind of people. Can’t have that, you know.

      Freaks.

    4. Liberty is a little girl selling poison out of a lemonade stand. Because if she doesn’t have a license and hasn’t been inspected, how do you know it’s not poison? Prove that it is not poison. You can’t. That’s why we need authority to grant permission and issue orders. Because the alternative is poison.

      1. Maybe I do get it.

        That is the argument they make, but really it is about a little girl having a lemonade stand without paying them tribute.

        They are just liars and thieves.

        1. Paying tribute is what it becomes, but I don’t think that that happens without a lot of people believing that that shit actually prevents bad things from happening.

          1. I’m not sure they always really do. And I’m not sure they’re always in it for themselves (liars and thieves). In some cases, it’s just pure, plain, malice. In some cases, they just want to crush that little girl’s hope/plan/ efforts. It gives them a sick thrill of a control they usually don’t have in their own life. They’ll rationalize it to no end under safety or religion/tradition or even “for the little girl’s own good”. But, every now and then you see the little smile they get when doing it. It’s the smile of a sadist. In one of the more honest moments of statist commentary Gore Vidal opined “Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.”

        2. I think it really does start off with good intentions. Someone in some profession does something to harm a customer, intentionally or accidentally, and there’s a cry to “DO SOMETHING!” So they do something. They require licenses and write regulations. That’s the good intentions part. Before long the thieves and liars take control, and use the apparatus to exclude competition and generally control people. Thus the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

          1. Thus the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions by work crews of useful idiots.

            1. I know it’s very unlibertarian of me, but I’m totally stealing this.

          2. They just can’t make the connection between their good intentions and entitled/privileged jackboots kicking down doors and caging people.

            Because that’s where their good intentions always end up. They are just willfully ignorant of it.

            1. I’ve actually had my door kicked in by the jackboots. Of course they knocked first and asked if they could come in, but my reluctance to allow them in evidently was probable cause. Didn’t find the *plant* they were looking for despite the word of their anonymous informant. Good intentions indeed. Been 20 years and I haven’t set foot in the US since then. Let me know when you guys finally put a yoke on those asses and I’ll come back for visit.

        3. No, they are NOT just liars and thieves. They are also bigots, pecksniffs, busybodies, egomaniacs, morons, and twits.

      2. And of course, no license can stop someone from poisoning the lemonade, yet people continue to believe that licensing and inspection are what keeps people from killing their customers. People are willing to sell out their freedom for a fantasy of order, not even actual order.

        1. This is what is so mind boggling about trying to talk with a lefty about this stuff. They honestly believe that absent government regulation businesses will start poisoning food and abusing workers. They seriously don’t understand the idea of competition or how businesses make profits.

          1. Considering there was poisoning and abuse galore prior to the establishment of such regulations, it’s not a flight of fancy.

            It is magical thinking to assume that businesses would, by market forces alone, uphold modern standards of safety and worker rights. Surely some would cut corners; some would find it more profitable to poison a few people than implement anti-poisoning checks. Not to mention, some would find it quite lucrative employing children at low wages in sweat shops. Because that never happens in unregulated economies, right?

            Even if most businesses met the same standards regulations set (in which cases, what harm are the regulations doing?), some wouldn’t, and consumers would be on the hook for figuring it out. “Company A killed me yesterday, so tomorrow I shall choose company B instead.” The magical market mechanism at work!

            1. Even if most businesses met the same standards regulations set (in which cases, what harm are the regulations doing?)

              Barriers to entry.
              Deadweight costs.

              That’s all.

              1. If they’re already upholding the same standards regulations would impose, the costs would be the same… You’re saying the harm is on businesses that would choose not to uphold the standards. Yeah, duh. I don’t think you should be allowed to make a profit if you can’t do so without poisoning people or paying a minimum wage. There is not some unexplored ocean of innovation in the unregulated sweatshop economy.

                1. There is not some unexplored ocean of innovation in the unregulated sweatshop economy.

                  Yes, there fucking is.

                2. You’re saying the harm is on businesses that would choose not to uphold the standards.

                  Yeah, probably. But, it’s also to the consumer who’d knowingly opt to do business with them anyway. The extra buck a pound I might save buying uninspected beef isn’t worth the 1/10,000 chance I’d have from getting sick eating it. But then, I’m pretty solidly in the middle class and the extra few bucks isn’t going to break me. For some people, though, it’s the difference between beef and rice and beans for their families. On the other hand, I certainly would prefer to be able to incur the extra risk I’d be taking on from the mites I’d be consuming on a couple of pounds of mimolette or the extra risk I’d be taking on in eating sheep lungs to get to try out haggis.
                  Any time you impose regulation, you impose your standards on everyone else. You might get a sick little thrill out of that. I don’t.

                  1. “The extra buck a pound I might save buying uninspected beef isn’t worth the 1/10,000 chance I’d have from getting sick eating it.”

                    Except that the FDA only inspects around 2% of the food hitting your table anyways, so for 98% of your meals, you ARE eating food that hasn’t been inspected.

                    1. True. But, the producer woudl still have to assume “inspection-ready”.

                    2. that doesn’t mean much, the Nazi’s concentration camps were always “inspection ready” too (the red cross inspected them prior to the outbreak of war and didn’t find anything amiss) what makes you think some jack-booted tony is going to notice the difference between bad meat and good meat, if similar inspectors couldn’t find a murder factory if they were in one.

                  2. Where you guys constantly misinterpret my view of things is that I don’t want to impose an arbitrary standard on people, I want a floor on certain things. Not only does it protect people, but it forces the market to be more sophisticated. People aren’t running around trying to find roots and weeds to feed their children, so they are free to pursue more advanced things. People don’t have to boil all their water because of water safety standards, so that frees up time for more productive activity. It’s always about setting a floor–for these two purposes. That’s the point of civilization.

                    1. And any floor is inherently arbitrary. You were the one to argue what actually transpired. Well, the mimolette ban is something that transpired. The ban on haggis is something that transpired. You can say “Ohs, noes that isn’t what I want.” But, it doesn’t change that these are the end results. It doesn’t change the fact that whatever floor you set is going to tell someone “Sorry, bub, rice and beans for you”, when they would have preferred taking on the risk.

            2. Right, that’s why anti-lock brakes, seatbelts, airbags, and a zillion other safety features were invented and sold to the public before the government mandated tham.

              You ought to change your handle to “[citation needed]”. Or may “will trade opinions for citations”.

              1. You are out of your mind if you think cars would be *just as* safe without seatbelt, airbag, and the zillion other mandates. But that’s evident, since your claim is literally that people would experience the market mechanism by dying in unsafe cars and later choosing safer options.

                1. You are out of your mind if you think cars would be *just as* safe without seatbelt, airbag, and the zillion other mandates.

                  No one said that. However most manufacturers would use most of those things anyway, for fear of being sued under tort law.

                  No coercion necessary. Amazing.

                2. Jeezuz you are stupid. Read what I wrote, you smelly dingbat fece. All those were invented by private industry and sold to the public BEFORE the government mandated them.

                3. no it is not at all out of anyones mind to think that cars would be just as safe as they are today without any mandates since car companies go out of their way above and beyond the law to prove their vehicles safety, of course there is always the exceptions like gm covering up so many faults but then its not like any laws actually stopped that happening either

              2. The same is about to happen with back up cameras. Which both my car and truck have, yet there is no current mandate to require it yet?

                1. …and adaptable cruise control…and parking assist…and blind spot detection…and lane departure warnings…

            3. Considering there was poisoning and abuse galore prior to the establishment of such regulations, it’s not a flight of fancy.

              That’s just a lie. Plain and simple.

            4. Surely some would cut corners; some would find it more profitable to poison a few people than implement anti-poisoning checks.

              If that is true, then the cost of poisoning a few people isn’t high enough.

            5. It’s not by “market forces alone.” Safety is also a marketable good. Producers and goods can be certified by companies that specialize in assessing safety and upholding standards.

              Of course, such companies could be corrupted or lax, but that’s demonstrably true for government agencies.

            6. Many businesses cut corners, sell alcohol beyond permitted hours, and pay their workers in cash even with regulations. This is actually standard practice in ethnic enclaves.

              1. So more illegals will equal less compliance? Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!

              2. and thank god for such patriots of liberty, I’d rather be paid 10 bucks under the table than 15 otherwise.

            7. “Considering there was poisoning and abuse galore prior to the establishment of such regulations, it’s not a flight of fancy.”

              I keep hearing this, but when I read historical accounts I run into as many cases of “accusations were made (by people with an obvious axe to grind)” as I do poisoning and abuse.

              Military supplies always being an exception. And that makes sense, when you think about it; the end user in that case isn’t in a position to buy or not buy. So he doesn’t matter.

            8. For children to be employed for low wages in sweat shops, wouldn’t there need to be children willing to work in sweat shops?

              1. Willing, defined rather loosely.

                1. Because we all know that, in the quest for a more limited government, the first thing to go is child labor laws.

                  First. Thing. To. Go.

                  1. Sure, it goes:

                    1. Elimination of excessive and unnecessary federal regulation.

                    2. Mandatory child labor in salt mines with wooden spades.

                    Just like that. Every time. This is how the government saves us from our worst impulses.

                    1. If only Bangladesh would take a harder line on child labor. Kids are driving down the WAGES! Fudgem’ for trying to earn money for food.

                    2. It probably would go something like that, just like whenever there’s a “budget crisis” at the city or state level, the first thing they shut down is the parks and fire department, instead of putting the fifteenth vice principal at every school on furlough or something else that no one would notice, and wouldn’t care about if they did.

                      No, to be scrupulously fair, it probably wouldn’t be “mandatory child labor in salt mines”, but I would definitely put my money on “something highly visible and painful to the public to teach them a lesson about not respecting authoritah”.

                2. yeah willing to work before staving is pretty loose. Children only go to work full time out of necessity which is indicative of worse problems in society that cause that necessity. banning child labor is like giving someone with a brain tumor advil for their headaches, it does not solve the real problem.

      3. So, IOW, they’re pussies.

        Freedom requires risk. They’d rather be safe than free. They are simply cowardly.

        1. Liberty requires risk. Freedom can be defined to mean freedom from risk. You can’t define liberty that way. Well, unless you’re Tony. Then liberty means both being free from coercion and being free to coerce all at the same time. But he’s a doublethink ninja.

          1. Except you don’t think you should have to take on the risk of having no government-enforced property rights.

            1. Except you don’t think you should have to take on the risk of having no government-enforced property rights.

              I have a right to defend my property. I do not have a right to force my neighbor to pay for my next visit to the doctor.

              1. You don’t have any property without a system of law and order saying you do. Which I have to help pay for. Government for thee, not for sick people. Immoral mooching swine.

                1. You don’t have any property without a system of law and order saying you do.

                  Absolutely false. Property predates law and order. Law and order came about as a result of property, not the other way around.

                  Government for thee, not for sick people.

                  Again, it’s not a matter of want. If it were possible for government to supply everyone’s wants while also protecting individual liberty, that would be great. But it can’t. One cancels the other. Once force is used for wants, then individual liberty falls by the wayside.

                  But you know this, which is why you despise individual liberty. You want coercion in all things. You’re just too much of a dishonest chickenshit to say it.

                  Immoral mooching swine.

                  Says the person who feels it’s perfectly OK to force his neighbors to pay for his health care.

                  1. Law and order came about as a result of property, not the other way around.

                    This doesn’t make any sense. You’re just saying it because it makes you feel like you’re not completely contradicting yourself in everything you believe. What utter nonsense. Prove it.

                    Once force is used for wants, then individual liberty falls by the wayside.

                    You want property. You don’t need it. You certainly don’t need it more than you need medical care in the event of an emergency. You certainly don’t need it more than food or water. I realize that acknowledging how COMPLETELY arbitrary your system of what force is OK for will undermine your entire worldview, but that’s a personal problem.

                    1. If property resulted from governments, what were governments created to protect, exactly?

                    2. This doesn’t make any sense.

                      That’s because you are stupid.

                      Prove it.

                      I could prove it with logic, but you are impervious to logic. Logic is abstract. It is not something you can put your finger on. Which means you, with your tiny little mind, cannot comprehend it. You’re too stupid.

                      I realize that acknowledging how COMPLETELY arbitrary your system of what force is OK for will undermine your entire worldview, but that’s a personal problem.

                      There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s based upon principle and logic. Things that are beyond your comprehension. Because you’re stupid.

                    3. Wow. Principles and logic. But I’m too stupid to understand them. THAT’S convincing.

                    4. so uhh Tony is actually correct here, one of the necessary and proper things that governments do is protect property rights.

                      Morally your house is yours because you paid for it, but that matters not to a thug who wants it and kicks your ass and takes it from you. Which is why we have government backed deeds that say your house is yours whether your ass gets kicked or not.

                      Now Tony goes on to mention Food/water and medical care as being more important than property. What he does not understand is that those things are themselves property, and just because of the needs of one person the deprivation of the rights of another to that property is not justified.

                      In a nutshell the government cannot justify depriving one person of food to feed another because it would require starving the other. Now the Tony’s of the world (disclaimer I’m tilting at strawmen here) say that taking from people with a surplus is justified, but the baker bakes more bread than he eats to trade for other necessities. That little concept of trading is one that proggies just don’t get.

                2. Says the person who would gleefully line up his political opponents and kill them if given the chance.

                  Don’t ever change, fascist.

                3. You don’t need a government to tell me what my property is. You can come to me and see what I allow you to take and what will amount to a punch in your slaver face if you try to take it.

                  1. What if your next door neighbor wants to cut a tree down but you disagree about whose side of the line it falls on? Fisticuffs? Yeah, real sophisticated philosophy you guys have got here.

                    1. That happens with sometimes anyway. So?

                      Sure as hell better than being dominated by beta male fags like you.

                    2. I can think of a bunch of different ways to amicably resolve that – and people have done just that for hundreds of thousands of years.

                      But a major reason that people like you are slavers and statists, and are scared of a society with liberty and real freedom, is because “Fisticuffs” is the ONLY way that YOU know to resolve that tree situation without handing over your rights. Fear is obviously the only thing keeping you from getting into a fight with your neighbor over a tree dispute. You are the caveman.

                      We are not scared of Liberty because we can navigate it. We are not worried about getting into a fight with our neighbors over a tree.

                      The statism of the modern world is the only thing that allows you entry into civilized society. Otherwise someone like you would be an troglodytic outcast.

                    3. I own a house on a small lot. My neighbor is an old lady who gets on my nerves. I have a maple tree that drops leaves in her lawn. Because she is physically unable and believes I have the responsibility to do so, she routinely calls the police to force me at gunpoint to rake the leaves in her front lawn.

                      Oh, wait, no, she asked me once when we first got the place and we just do it because we don’t want to be dicks, even when she’s annoying. Same reason we shovel the snow in front of her house.

                      Tony, you might find this surprising, but a guy on the other side of my block went through our neighborhood with his snowblower this past winter and cleared everyone’s sidewalks. Another guy plowed the street since the city apparently decided they weren’t going to do it. Later that week some folks got together and dropped off some cash to pay for gas.

                      Now, this is the part that will knock your socks off: the government wasn’t involved. At. All.

                    4. Now, this is the part that will knock your socks off: the government wasn’t involved. At. All.

                      We help each other out in the neighborhood as well. Especially clearing snow for the old widower next door.

                      No coercion involved.

                      Tony would never understand, because he is neither kind, sophisticated nor is he civilized. He’s a stupid worm.

                    5. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. Yes, obviously, if all people lived in Mayberry and there were never any conflicts, government might not be necessary.

                      Real sophisticated and realistic philosophy you got there.

                    6. What if your next door neighbor wants to cut a tree down but you disagree about whose side of the line it falls on? Fisticuffs? Yeah, real sophisticated philosophy you guys have got here.

                      Most libertarians support courts for the purpose of resolving disputes without resorting to violence. We are infinitely more sophisticated and civilized than you.
                      Now what happens when your doctor says you need an operation, and you decide you want your neighbor to pay for it. Why not? He’s richer than you. He can afford it.
                      We civilized people say tough shit. Forcing your neighbor to pay for it violates his right to property.
                      You say “I WANT I WANT I WANT I WANT” like a child, never understanding that want has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. Ours is based upon principle, not want. Which you can’t understand, because you’re too stupid.

                    7. You mean courts I HAVE TO PAY FOR?

                      THIEVING MOOCH.

                4. It’s people like me paying for shit for people like you dbag.

                5. Tony:

                  You don’t have any property without a system of law and order saying you do. Which I have to help pay for. Government for thee, not for sick people. Immoral mooching swine.

                  God, this same bullshit? It’s been debunked 100 times. You’re like a treadmill of derp, that just keeps going and going.

                  I’ve had better conversations with a computer trying to beat the Turing test, which, at this point, you’d fail. Because no real person would enjoy this much repetitive derp, over and over again.

                  1. On that note, I’ve created the Reason.com Tony chatbot. If anyone feels like having a libertarian argument with Tony, just go here:

                    http://www.chatbot4u.com/en/chatbots/tony-4.html

                    Here are some examples, taken from actual conversations:

                    Tony: Hello, nice to see you on my chat!
                    Brian: I’m a libertarian
                    Tony: And you have no idea what you really believe, do you?
                    Brian: What do you think about libertarianism?
                    Tony: Libertarianism boileds down the millenia-old political debate into slogans and simple rules, because they are simple-minded.
                    Brian: Really? So their disapproval of Obamacare is just about slogans?
                    Tony: All women need free maternity coverage and birth control. What if they get hit by a bus?
                    Tony: If taxing the rich is the same as stealing from them, then you don’t get any of the government programs you want, and the only option is anarchy. Seems as if we’re forced to agree that taxation isn’t theft.
                    Brian: But what if we run out of rich people?
                    Tony:The wealthy will always have more influence over policy than they deserve as mere citizens in a democracy, It will never be possible that their taxes are too high, or their regulations too strict.

                    Tony loops around on himself pretty frequently, so if he’s not around, just go there and have a conversation with him.

                  2. You have said you have debunked it 100 times about 100 times, but you have never actually debunked it.

          2. Freedom can be defined to mean freedom from risk.

            Respectfully disagree. One may ATTEMPT to define freedom as you describe in order to justify one’s immoral ideology. But it’s STILL incorrect AND a lie.

            Sorry immoral progs, you may not hijack my sacred word.

            1. Your sacred word is liberty, not freedom.

              Freedom can mean freedom to and freedom from. It goes both ways.

              I can be free to smoke in a bar, or I can be free from breathing smoke in a bar.

              Liberty only goes one way. I can have the liberty to smoke in a bar, but I cannot have the liberty to coerce smokers into going outside. That’s not what liberty means.

              It’s what Tony wants liberty to mean, but it’s not what it actually means.

              1. Don’t tell me what my sacred word is…

                …bitch! 🙂

                In order for freedom to not mean liberty, you gotta put the to/from after it. I do not give left-tards like Tony permission to corrupt my beautiful word.

                FREEEEEEEEEEDOM!

                1. Don’t tell me what my sacred word is…

                  …bitch! 🙂

                  Whatever. Go blow up a copper mine or something.

                2. Freedom? That Yang worship word! You will not speak it!

      4. They get mad when I point out that the health scares from these unlicensed food trucks and lemonade stands are nonexistent or conveniently NEVER reported while every single incident of food poisoning actually reported has happened at one of these licensed and inspected facilities.

        They get whiny and devolve into comments about Somalia and anarchy when I point out that every place I’ve ever worked knew about the inspections ahead of time, sometimes weeks ahead, and had all the time in the world to fix all the ongoing things that inspection is supposed to prevent from occurring at all-improper storage, handling, etc.

        1. yes when it comes to inspections I always think about how the Nazi’s concentration camps passed inspections by the red cross. So obviously the Holocaust couldn’t have happened because the top men prevented it…

    5. Suthenboy, in their minds they do not hate liberty, they are the one’s actually defending it, in this case from meanie employers who want to ‘control’ the reproductive health choices of their workers (read Ginsburg’s dissent). It’s not people who actually hate liberty, it’s people with a distorted view of what liberty entails that’s the problem, and to me that’s a little better situation.

      1. See my comment above.

        1. You don’t think its even possible that some of them genuinely believe these things? I run into a lot of people who believe some incredible stuff in my life, I don’t assume they are all liars and thieves.

          1. Somebody who believes liberty actually means asking permission and following orders is worse/more dangerous than somebody who actually realizes the contrary, but supports the Total State nonetheless.

      2. The funny thing is that they don’t realize that it’s not Hobby Lobby restricting women’s reproductive liberty*, but the Federal government. Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to pay for four of the 20 required contraceptives: women are free to pay for it out of pocket, find other insurance, or find another employer (like the 99.999% of American employers who don’t seem to care).

        When the FDA says you can’t have a particular method of birth control, you’re pretty much SOL. Changing insurance or employer or paying for it yourself are not options. You can’t choose another FDA to use. And yet for some reason, the FDA never comes up as “restricting women’s freedom to choose”.

        * Unless you define “liberty” as “having someone else pay for everything”, which many of them do.

        1. You aren’t free unless you get free shit.

          1. You aren’t free unless you enslave everyone around you.

        2. If I were willing to continue having this conversation with progtards, I would totally bring this up.

          But I’m not, so I’ll just laud you for this point, here.

    6. They hate liberty because they see it largely as the Liberty to tell them (your betters) to go climb a tree. Liberty means that people are allowed to ignore Liberal Intellectuals, which would be Truly Dreadful.

      The Liberal Intellectual is, at base, a frustrated Aristocrat; absolutely sure that he was placed upon Earth by Divine Providence to tell the rest of us what to do. That he and his like would experience serious difficulty arranging a piss-up in a brewery is (to them) beside the point.

    7. Because the explosion of science and technology in the 1800s gave rise to the false premise that society itself could be guided by scientific principles. It’s understandable to me in hindsight how that could have been a popular idea; my grandfather’s life spanned the phone, radio, cars, airplanes, and moon landings. Why not think society itself was amenable to that kind of progress?

      But while I can understand those rhoughts at the time, they led to eugenics everywhere, and have failed to produce anything close to the expected utopias everywhere, and it’s long since been time to admit society can’t be governed like a steam engine or designed like an airplane. That’s where statists fall down, their refusal to admit they need to get real jobs, not society’s keepers.

      1. Society can govern itself with voluntary institutions distributing services like police, fire, arbitration and justice. Monopolies just don’t seem to do the job too well.

  6. The problem is that many people are so accustomed to the employer-based system that they can’t conceive of getting their health care any other way.

    So any sort of restriction on what sort of insurance the employer provides they immediately perceive as a threat to their ability to get healthcare. The concept of paying out of pocket or purchasing their own insurance never enters their minds. Or if it does, they just assume it must be insanely expensive. They have no idea what anything costs, since they never have to pay for it.

    1. Ironic that the whole idea of employer-paid healthcare was just a response to the Left’s preposterously high income taxes.

      Paying an employee’s health insurance was simply a way to compensate him/her without handing half of it to the government.

      1. Beginnings of employer paid healthcare originated from teachers’ unions, and it expanded during WWII due to pay freezes due to a wartime economy. And then it was entrenched, and the premiums were deductible by the employer but not taxable to the employee – a fairly big break in terms of taxes. So all of this is one big swoop into welfarism/warfarism. The two are joined at the hip in very trenchant ways. We’ve lived in a welfare/warfare economy for at least 100 years, and the average person is programmed to think inside that box. Then you layer in “maximum for me, minimum for every one else” selfishness and you have the current system (with predatory lawyerism tossed in for flavor).

        1. This is maybe the one reason why a single-payer healthcare system might be better: it would break the nonsensical and pernicious link between your employer and your healthcare. It might be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, but at least it offers some different possibilities.

          1. I like the concept of single payer equals the person getting care singularly pays for it vs. the concept of the government being the one paying for it.

            Instead, let’s remove the regulations that keep medical insurance from operating like insurance for your car, home, renters, boat, etc.

            If I have the means, I’m free to eschew insurance and pay everything myself (Why does Donald Trump, George Soros, etc. have to purchase an insurance plan if they don’t want one?).

            If I don’t have the means to handle some rare, high cost incidents, I pay into a risk pool that meets MY budget, desires, and needs.

    2. This is in large part due to the government’s preferential tax treatment of employer provided health insurance, no?

      1. Obviously.

        I’m trying to explain how the system affects people’s attitudes, not how it originated.

        The most important thing is to get people out of the mindset that healthcare is inextricably linked to employment.

  7. That the left is made not at all nervous by this shows how little it cares about individuals or liberty.

    Well, duh. Individuals aren’t part of the collective. And we’re all in this together. No man is an island. Individualists want all the benefits of the collective, but they oppose being coerced into paying for it. That’s not fair. They must be coerced. And liberty? Well, that goes totally against the collective. Liberty means being free from coercion. Well guess what, collectivism simply cannot work without coercion. People must be coerced for the greater good. They must be coerced into paying for the things we all collectively need, and their behavior must be controlled by coercion as well. As far as free markets go, that’s the road to inequality. Markets must be controlled. Everything must be controlled.

    Freedom is slavery.

    1. My favorite LVRJ statist agrees:
      http://www.reviewjournal.com/c…..1472019789

      “In short, a recognition that all this and your ability to live is only through all our efforts together. The very existence of language is a recognition that there is no such thing as self sufficiency and it is a stupid myth in U.S. society.

      Now, insert your stupid comments about socialism, communism, etc. just below this. All while driving and depending on government infrastructure.”

      1. I…I don’t even. I had a conversation with a derpy friend of mine this weekend that amounted to about the same thing. I said, “Not paying for you to get something isn’t the same as you being forbidden from obtaining it.” I got in response, “ROADSZ…CORPORTAIOTNIS ARE BAD…NASA…THERE WAS NO HEALTH CARE BEFORE OBAMA…AGLERWGKJREKJG!!!”

        At one point, he stopped and said, “You’re looking at me as if you know more about what I’m saying than I do and you’re going to say something that will make me feel stupid…” Which was true, but I didn’t want to be a dick. He continued, nevertheless.

        In some cases, it just doesn’t pay to engage.

    2. Maybe they were the man behind the man behind the man?

      Like 3D chess and shit? The ACLU is so at the forefront that they’re invisible!
      Cac tour du lich da nang | tour du lich ha long gia goc, hap dan nam 2014

  8. The left hates any check on unlimited executive control over our lives.

    But don’t worry, they’ll hate that unlimited executive control again the next time a GOPer sits in the WH.

    Progressives are craven power-hungry slavers. From their days pushing eugenics through Jom Crow to today’s fight against free association in the workplace or schools. They yearn to control every aspect of our lives, and the day will come when we are forced to take up arms to defend our liberties from their advances.

    1. Jim Crow was a market failure, don’t you know?

      1. How,the hell have they managed to sell the myth that the proponents of Jim Crow all became republicans? And why doesn’t the GOP trot out example after example disputing that fallacy?

        1. “How,the hell have they managed to sell the myth that the proponents of Jim Crow all became republicans?”

          Because the districts that once had Jim Crow laws now tend to vote GOP regularly?

          1. Wait, so laws are written by district now? And the places where racist laws passed by democrats are now typically represented by republicans 40 years after the laws were overturned is proof that the republicans were the racists all along?

            Well, you’ve certainly managed to turn yourself into a pretzel this morning, Bo. As usual, your arguments are factually incorrect (laws by district?) but don’t stand up to even the simplest “cause and effect” scrutiny either.

            As to the laws by district argument you made, I take it those districts are the same even after five census reports and 50 years of migration. Right?

            1. sloopyinva, many Jim Crow laws were local laws. But if it pleases you, let’s change it to say ‘the areas that once had and supported Jim Crow laws now tend to elect Republicans.’

              1. Yes, they tend to elect republicans now that the laws are abolished and the cretins that passed and enforced them (Democrats) no longer have the ability to encode discrimination.

                1. You’re right sloopyinva, the culture just totally changed in that time. I know, for example, that here in SC we eat NY pizza instead of grits now and everybody talks like the Sopranos…

                  1. You’re saying culture is defined by what people eat or the tv shows they watch? Well when in Hilton Head, I often opt to drive across the river and eat NY pizza at Screaming Mimi’s. As for TV shows, I guess we can all expect dragons to come soon since all,of America is enthrall end by GoT, right?

                    You’re equating institutional racism with regional food tastes. Well guess what, dumbass. People are still gonna be eating a low country boil regardless of whether a Dem or GOPer is in the state house in Columbia. And boiled peanuts will still be a delicacy. But you know what? Places like Jalape?os and Nosh will still be opening in places like Bluffton as well.

                    1. No, sloopyinva, I’m saying that it’s not as if everyone who supported Jim Crow in the South, and the culture (which includes culinary tastes, dialect, but also religious and political views) they were part of, up and left or just changed their minds totally on race in a 50 year span. Given that, their current electoral choices say something about what the former supporters of Jim Crow prefer in their politics today.

                    2. How many former supporters of Jim Crow are voting today? Link or case study or your post is crap.

                    3. If I had said its all due to actual supporters of historical Jim Crow voting today you might be correct.

                    4. Bo, you’re so wrong it’s incredible.

                      60 years ago the Democrats weren’t the insane gun-grabbers they are today; likewise the Republicans weren’t supporting ag subsidies like they do today.

                      You want to see the southern shift from Democrat to Republican as racism-based – because you see SoCons everyhere. It’s more likely gun rights and lip-service to property rights. The GOP, at least in the south, will vote for ag subsdies so it’s no longer a differentiating issue between the 2 parties.

                      High-growth areas turn into liberal cesspools. So the Democrats will rise again in the south.

                  2. Take the case of Vermont. It was the only state to never give its electoral college votes to FDR in any of his four presidential elections. The two current US Senators are the first two non-Republican Senators from that state ever; and one is an out-right socialist. The state routinely elects several members of the Progressive Party to the state legislature. The politics of Vermont has changed in a major way in the last 50 years. Shall we hold the current crop of elected officials from there accountable for Calvin Coolidge?

                    1. Vermont’s a great example, actually.

                      Look at the man current Democrat Senator Leahy replaced, Republican George Aiken who served from 1941-1975 described as “a liberal Northeastern Republican in the Senate.” No dramatic change there in the last 50 years.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Aiken

              2. Blacks in AL continued to vote for Wallace after he blocked their entrance to the U of A.

              3. The correlation remains:

                Jim Crow laws :: Dems in power
                No Jim Crow laws :: Repubs in power

              4. That’s actually not really true. If you look at the transition of the South from Dem. to Rep., it largely happened, at least initially, in the suburban districts. Those districts weren’t the hotbed of Jim Crow. Rather, they were the destinations of choice for the Sunbelt migrations of the 50s-80s.

                1. This comment is for BCE’s reference to voting switches.

          2. Orval Faubus
            Benjamin Travis Laney
            John Stennis
            James Eastland
            Allen Ellender
            Russell Long
            John Sparkman
            John McClellan
            Richard Russell
            Herman Talmadge
            George Wallace
            Lester Maddox
            John Rarick
            Robert Byrd
            Al Gore, Sr.
            Bull Connor

    2. “The left hates any check on unlimited executive control over our lives.”

      That’s certainly not generally true.

      1. I should have been more specific and said the progressives on the left”.

        And show me one area in the last 5 1/2 years where they’ve not been supportive of extra-legislative actions by the executive branch.

        1. The main legal opponent to Obama’s NSA and extrajudicial drone executions of citizens policy has been the ACLU, for one.

          1. Except for the fact that Rand Paul and the EFF are the ones actually filing suits against it.

            1. ACLU lawsuits on those subjects have been in the Courts for years now sloopy.

              1. Google Clapper v. Amnesty, for starters. That one made it to the SCOTUS.

              2. The ACLU filed,in NY and their case was rejected. The EFF suit in CA is ongoing as is Paul’s in the DC circuit, which is the same place where a conservative group sued and won. The amnesty international suit, last I checked, didn’t have anything to do with the ACLU. but if the groups are the same or are related, I’m sure you can provide a link showing that to be the case.

                1. The ACLU was behind the case, their deputy director argued the case in front of SCOTUS. They filed the case before Rand Paul was even a Senator.

                  1. Its saying my link is a ‘word that is too long (50 characters) but google this for the link “Amnesty et al. v. Clapper: FISA Amendments Act Challenge”

                  2. Then it’s pretty fucking odd that they didn’t even file an amicus brief for the case.

                    http://www.scotusblog.com/case…..ional-usa/

                    1. From,the link:

                      Sep 17 2012 Brief of respondents Amnesty International USA, et al. filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 21 2012 Brief amici curiae of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), et al. filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amici curiae of Former Church Committee members and staff filed. (Distributed) Reprinted
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Committee on Civil Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amicus curiae of New York State Bar Association filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed)
                      Sep 24 2012 Brief amicus curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed. (Distributed)
                      Oct 17 2012 Reply of petitioners James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al. filed. (Distributed)

                    2. Maybe they were the man behind the man behind the man?

                      Like 3D chess and shit? The ACLU is so at the forefront that they’re invisible!

                    3. Leading from behind, I guess.

                    4. They wouldn’t file an amicus brief if they were part of the case itself, and they wouldn’t file as a party because they wouldn’t have standing, they needed organizations that engaged in transmissions likely to be monitored. Again, the ACLU argued the case on their behalf.

                    5. “Jameel Jaffer
                      Counsel of Record
                      Steven R. Shapiro
                      Alexander A. Abdo
                      Mitra Ebadolahi
                      American Civil Liberties
                      Union Foundation
                      125 Broad Street
                      New York, NY 10004
                      Arthur N. Eisenburg
                      Christopher T. Dunn
                      Melissa Goodman
                      New York Civil Liberties
                      Union Foundation
                      125 Broad Street
                      New York, NY 10004”

                      http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/…..al-BIO.pdf

                    6. Their name was not attached to the complaint. Just because a couple of their employees did pro bono work on the case doesn’t make it theirs.

                      And any number of people filed briefs in support of the case that had no more standing to do so than the ACLU. And it’s commonplace for orgs to file amici in cases where there is a motive. They easily could have directly filed a brief in this case and the SC would have let it stand.

                    7. With respect, you really have no idea what you are talking about. The very group that is bringing the suit in question doesn’t file an amicus, they file the brief of the party in the suit.

                      The ACLU is a group of lawyers who bring suit FOR various defendants, they usually do not sue as a complaintant themselves, just as the Beckett Fund, a conservative legal group that argues for religious rights and which represented Hobby Lobby in their case, did not sue as the Becket Fund.

      2. Okay.

        “The left hates any check on unlimited executive control over our lives when a Democrat controls the Executive branch.”

      3. You’re right

        The left hates any check on unlimited executive control over our lives, except when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage.

  9. Jom=Jim.

    1. I assumed Jom was his ne’er do well half-brother.

      1. You say Jom, I say Jim, let’s call the whole thing off

    2. Jom is the one in Jamaica, right?

      1. Jom Crow is representative of the anti-immigration laws and policies in place in Britain during the 70’s Jamaican immigration explosion.

      2. Ja mon.

  10. I’m sure the left would be livid if a Jewish or Muslim employer had won a case to be exempted from a requirement to provide their employees with bacon cheeseburgers.

    As for the article itself, I’m not sure what I find more ridiculous: the belief that childbirth doesn’t involve the life of the child, the idea that a second page was needed for 128 words, or the idea that it’s OK to skip alt-text. What am I saying, it’s the alt-text.

    1. The page break seems to be automatic after 15 paragraphs.

  11. Jesus, how many articles are you going to write about “the left’s” wacko reaction to this? Who gives a flying fuck what those lunatics think? All it does is show how far up their assess you people really are. It’s creepy and embarrassing to read shit like this, to be honest.

    I, for one, haven’t even noticed their reaction because I don’t associate with any leftists. Why would I choose to be around people I despise? Guess I’m not as desperate for the cocktail parties.

    1. you may not associate with them, but a lot of people do, people whose lives don’t necessarily revolve around politics. The media remains dominated by the hysterics, the ones writing the type pieces this article describes. Low info voters are not a mirage.

      1. So what? They’re still beneath me, which is all that really matters. You only get worked up when you disagree with somebody you respect.

        1. I for one don’t mind associating with people I disagree with. You learn that a lot of them are not devils but can be good friends and people who just are wrong on some political issues.

          1. That’s because you’re one of them at heart. You just happen to think markets work well or something like that, making it a purely intellectual disagreement. Not me. I have a fundamentally different outlook that influences my reactions even in non-political spheres.

            1. No, most people actually do manage to be civil and be friends with people who disagree with them. I think you’re just an asshole. Which you seem to be at peace with, so good for you.

              1. Some of us have had enough. Things are getting pretty bad. I’ve had to fight tooth and nail my entire adult life against leftists and their policies from taking my livelihood.

                I have a far left aunt and uncle. California college professors prior to their retirement. In addition to voting for every dark and evil Leftist candidate and idea, they donate their time, money, and use of their residence towards making these things happen.

                Since before i was old enough to work they’ve supported everything put forth in this country that has hurt me economically, professionally, and in terms of personal liberty. Yet they act as if we are friends.

                After the 2012 election, I realize the situation was no longer tenable. I cannot be friendly, or socialize with people who work around-the-clock their entire lives to destroy mine. Simply put, they are the enemy through their own doing. So I no longer associated with them.

                They made their choice a very long time ago. My decision does not make me childish, just clear thinking.

        2. No, you get worked up when you disagree with somebody that can affect your life. I have very little political respect for my acquaintances that are progressive – but it bothers me that they are so statist, smug, and stupid because they can vote – and being from California they vote to my destriment and the detriment of liberty constantly. There’s nothing to respect about that – but it should be obvious why one would get “worked up” about it.

    2. If,you bury your head in the sand and don’t acknowledge the lefts reaction, then how do you expect to stave off their next attack on our personal liberties?

      You plan for the battle by figuring out how your opponent plans to fight it. Otherwise you’re destined to lose.

      1. I don’t suggest doing nothing, but there’s a sort of pleading feel to all these pieces, as if the authors feel betrayed by an old friend. That’s what I don’t get.

        I see it this way: It’s like when my dog came home from the woods the other day after rolling around in a pile of shit. I was a little pissed because now I had to stop watching the game and give him a bath, but I wasn’t all heartbroken like “OMG, why is he behaving this way!?!”. He behaves that way because he’s an dog. Much the same as I look at them.

        1. I see your point a little better now. And I guess I agree with your assessment of reason writers feeling like they were betrayed b an old friend. More than a few of them tend to be of the left-libertarian variety.

          That said, I still,think,to worth keeping tabs on the proggies reactions. It’s going to come in handy the next time we have to face down an attack on our personal liberties.

          1. Agree 100%. I read some leftist stuff to try and develop better counterarguments. But I don’t get surprised or worked up by their lunacy. I expected it going in, after all.

    3. I give a flying fuck what those lunatics think because those lunatics are voters, congressmen, and even the president.

      Ignoring a slavering monster trying to devour your liberty does not make it go away.

      1. That’s what separates us from anarchists!

  12. I’ll give them a pass on the Harris case since it does have some questionable legal and ideological things going on, but the Hobby Lobby case is quite interesting. Ross Douthat did a recent article about how Hobby Lobby is in many was what liberals say they want: a socially responsible employer who pays quite above minimum wage and feels a moral duty to provide quality insurance to their employees.

    When I talk to liberal friends, classmates or co-workers about it I ask them to consider a Quaker owned business in a community that has a law saying you must allow people to carry or store firearms on the property of public accommodations and the owner suing under a RFRA act. When they see the rightness of that I explain the exact same principle is going on in Hobby Lobby.

    1. Harris was the easy one. People who were independent contractors, at best, of the federal government, who had absolutely nothing to gain from unionization (not wage increases, not work rules) were forced into a union without even a vote.

      They in no way qualified as even potential union members, and were never given the procedural opportunity to vote or not vote, much less voluntarily join.

    2. Yes they see that only their top men should get to dictate what happens on “public acommodations” a.k.a. private property.

  13. I believe that because the mother’s?and only the mother’s?life is implicated in childbirth, she ought to have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant or proceed with a pregnancy.

    By using the term mother, you’re admitting that there is another person whose role in the relationship is that of “child”. Now I wonder, are children living things? Could the child’s life be implicated in child birth? Thanks for making such a poorly reasoned argument, as usual, Dalmia.

    1. Maybe she’s one of the many people who don’t see embryos or fetuses up to a certain point as human persons with rights to trump the mothers?

      1. Again, the word mother suggests otherwise.

      2. Maybe she’s one of the many people who don’t see embryos or fetuses up to a certain point as human persons with rights to trump the mothers?

        Are embryos not alive? Abortion, right or wrong has nothing to do with Dalmia making a stupid fucking argument that only the mother’s life implicated in a pregnancy, because apparently the fetus/embryo/witless sack of meat, or whatever you want to call it, is somehow devoid of life and worthy of no consideration whatsoever.

        In fact, going off Dalmia’s absolutist position, even a 9 month old lifeless sack of meat, is not ‘implicated’ in the pregnancy and can be terminated without a moral foul. Regardless of which side of the issue you’re on, it’s a stupid fucking argument from start to finish.

      3. So if she were pregnant and someone assaulted her and caused her to miscarry, could that someone be tried for manslaughter or murder? It ceases to be murder as long as the mother does it voluntarily? Then why doesn’t that apply after it’s born?

        I’m pro-choice, but that seems to be a big logical problem for the rabid choicers.

        1. So if she were pregnant and someone assaulted her and caused her to miscarry, could that someone be tried for manslaughter or murder? It ceases to be murder as long as the mother does it voluntarily? Then why doesn’t that apply after it’s born?

          In some cases, certainly. Would you not agree that if you killed a 9 month old fetus as soon as half it’s head is hanging out of mama, that would be a bit murdery? It’s clear that somewhere between fertilization and birth, the fetus becomes human being and attains rights that the rest of humanity has some kind of moral obligation to respect, especially the mother who in 98% of the cases is pregnant because of her own life choices.

          I’m pro-choice, but that seems to be a big logical problem for the rabid choicers.

          You’re pro-choice so those with whom you disagree certainly don’t have actual reasons behind their position, they are rabid after all.

          When examining whose rights trumps another’s, the only principle one need invoke is that “ones person’s rights end where another’s begins”, this leaves no room for logical inconsistency. You might agree that the mother doesn’t have a right to stab the baby while it’s sliding out of her vaginal orifice, and she certainly doesn’t have a similar right to coat hanger the thing at least some amount of time before that. That’s the big logical and/or moral problem for the pro-infanticiders.

          1. //That’s the big logical and/or moral problem for the pro-infanticiders.

            Well, it would be, if they weren’t crazy sociopaths who want abortion to be legal until the moment of birth and probably a little bit after (eugenicists were leftists, after all), and legal to children of any age without parental consent,

            AND view any opposition to that view as being driven by crazy religious fanatics

            there is no moral problem when you’re out of your fucking mind

            funny how much of leftism is driven by fantasies of fighting some patriarchy

            1. Nah the leftists have merely cast aside the old antiquated norms of morality to make room for new morality; where theft is charity, murder is justice and slavery is citizenship. Fuck the left, all of them.

    2. I just don’t like how she ignored that the man is forced to pay for the baby even though he has no choice.

      Do men not have the right to control their bodies? (You make money using your body, obviously)

  14. It is that it turns the whole notion of a safety net on its head, redefining the relationship between the government and the citizenry.

    The safety net is right where it’s supposed to be, it’s a politically constructed concept that has nothing to do with altruism. If injustice is something that you think is a recent or unnecessary component of ‘the safety net’, then you really don’t have a clue about the true relationship between the government and the people it lords over.

  15. You would think that at some point outrage fatigue would set in. Of course it doesn’t take any thought or energy to share or like a post or to retweet. It also takes no thought or intelligence to call every one who disagrees with tou about even the slightest thing a facist.

  16. You do realize how dumb you sound when you say that the mother is the only person whose life is implicated at childbirth right? Aren’t you forgetting someone else…?

    1. She did not say ‘at childbirth’ she said ‘in childbirth’ and the context suggests she means by that ‘the decision to carry a child to birth.’

      1. How can you be “in childbirth” unless childbirth occurs? Also, how can you be a mother without a child? Everything about that argument was flawed.

        1. It makes more sense if by mother she meant ‘potential mother’ (and ‘potential child’). Since at least part of what she’s talking about is the decision to use birth control I think context suggests that’s what she meant.

          1. I agree its not ideally worded, it would have been better to have wrote ‘The decision whether to become a mother or not(or to have a child) should be the mother’s, because at the time of the choice it is only her life that is at issue.’

            1. But she’s undertaking the task of disproving embryonic or fetal life as a throw away line to develop “I’m-not-a-conservative-nutjob” street cred. It’s lazy. If it were that easy, there wouldn’t be a pro life movement.

            2. Dalmia said only the mother’s life is implicated. However you or I personally feel about abortion is irrelevant. This is an objectively false claim unless you can prove that a fetus isn’t a living thing.

          2. If you’re making the anti-science argument that an embryo or fetus isn’t a human being, then you should probably get your phrasing right…

  17. Considering Hobby Lobby already covered all but one of the contraceptive forms it only objected to following the passage of the ACA, and the fact that none of the methods are actually abortion-causing, the belief in question is not, in fact, religiously motivated. You could say fine, the First Amendment protects political beliefs too. So how is that not a potential slippery slope? The logic of this opinion is profoundly disturbing. The only reason it seems not to be to some people is because they think there is something special about the belief that it’s an employer’s place to tell its female workers to keep their legs closed.

    Even if you found the original ruling narrow and respectful of not making acquiring contraceptives any more burdensome for the employees, the emergency injunction for Wheaton College undermines all that. Now merely signing a form is significantly burdensome on religious belief–because the college says so.

    Again, if there is no slippery slope here, then that’s possibly even worse, because the court is actively siding with a particular set of religious (or political) beliefs. To be consistent, shouldn’t it have to accommodate all manner of objections to law?

    1. Nowhere are they siding with a particular set of religious beliefs. I didn’t see anywhere in the ruling that only companies with Christian owners got an exception.

      1. I eagerly await the precedent being applied to fundamentalist Muslim business owners and some particular objection of theirs.

        1. It is applied to them. They also don’t have to provide these kinds of contraception. See, no favoritism.

          1. Same question I’ve had all along: Alito said it doesn’t apply to blood transfusions, but he doesn’t explain why not. I don’t know which is more disturbing, a narrow ruling or a broad one. A narrow one seems to be picking favorites, as far as religious beliefs go.

            1. Well of course it should have been a broader ruling. It should have said “it’s ridiculous to force a business pay for your shit. End of opinion.”

              1. It’s paying for labor, that’s all. Government regulates that, rightly, in many ways. I don’t like that health insurance is part of compensation packages instead of being a single-payer government service, but that’s the world we currently live in.

                1. Currently, the government can’t say to you, “Tony, you run a car dealership and you employ Brad, Sally, Tyrone, and Mimi. They each get $200,000 per year, except for Tyrone and Mimi who get $250,000 because they are minorities, and birth control. You can keep what’s left over or make up the difference if there isn’t enough!” They don’t because people don’t like being forced to do things against their will. Like pay for someone’s birth control…

                  1. The point is you’re still focused on birth control! Almost like it’s some kind of special category of things people are “forced” to pay for. In reality it’s part of the compensation package for employees as determined in part by government incentives and regulations. To someone who’s not obsessed with what women are doing with their own vaginas, it sounds like a peculiar fixation when there are so many other unobjectionable things workers are compensated with in their insurance packages.

                    1. I agree that the opinion should not have been narrowly tailored to only include birth control. Most people aren’t okay with coercion. Especially when they’re the ones being coerced.

                    2. ” To someone who’s not obsessed with what women are doing with their own vaginas…”

                      You mean the vaginas that are insisting on allocating my tax dollars and driving up my insurance costs due to their disproportionate use of health care? You mean the same vaginas who are predictably silent about any of the inequalities that they benefit from?

                      “We need to destroy the OMG PATRIARCHY! – but only after we give them unfettered access to politicize our reproductive health”

                2. “I don’t like that health insurance is part of compensation packages instead of being a single-payer government service…”

                  Go hang out at a VA Hospital for a couple of days. You’ll change your mind about government-run health care unless you’re utterly fucking retarded.

              2. Exactly

                1. The exactly was in response to Brian. Apply that to everything else. Instead of money we’ll pay for your housing but you have to live here, we’ll pay for your food but you have to eat this, we’ll pay for your car we hope you like the color and model we choose, we’ll pay for your entertainment and we hope you like what we provide. It’s ludicris.

                  1. And how is free birth control mkre inportant than food and shelter?

                  2. AJB, My name is briannnnn 😉

            2. Alito said it doesn’t apply to blood transfusions, but he doesn’t explain why not.

              Probably because nobody is, or really can, offer an insurance policy that excludes blood transfusions.

              There’s also the particulars of the religious objection to blood transfusion. They don’t object to other people getting transfusions, they just refuse them for themselves.

              There is an interesting question floating around, still. If no policy is available that meets your religious beliefs, are you excused from the penaltax for being uninsured? That wasn’t before the Court, but I could see it coming up.

            3. Because it’s all based on “least restrictive” measures of implementation.

        2. We can assume that it already is applied. Go check with your Halal market down the street to see if they pay for abortions and contraceptives willingly. It might not be unreasonable to assume that fundamentalist Muslims already enjoyed deference by virtue of their perpetual victim status.

          1. I’m saying the ruling seems to be treating contraceptives as deserving of special status with respect to religious beliefs. That it’s five conservative Catholic men making this new law up out of thin air I’m sure is just a huge coincidence.

            1. You’re calling Anthony Kennedy conservative? He wrote the opinion striking down DOMA.

              1. He’s a libertarian, and those people for some reason tend to be easily hoodwinked by theocrats.

                1. Well I guess Sonia didn’t get the memo. Thank God Ruth, Elena, and Stephen went to temple that week or they wouldn’t have known to dissent. I mean, it is all based on religion after all…

                  1. My original thesis was that it has little to do with religion and much to do with crass politics.

                    HL offered these contraceptive forms in their insurance (except the IUD) before. Did God speak to them and revise His holy opinion on the matter at the precise moment Sean Hannity started flapping his jaw following the passage of the ACA?

                    1. Then HL is run by pragmatists. They didn’t see how they could get the whole law struck down so they went for what they could…Nothing wrong with that I think.

                    2. The ACA has little to do with healthcare and much to do with crass politics. It’s funny how you think only opposition to the ACA is political, but never the law and it’s supporters, because they are pure altruists with the tremendous amount of information necessary to centrally plan an economy.

            2. That it’s five conservative Catholic men making this new law up out of thin air I’m sure is just a huge coincidence.

              They didn’t create a new law, they invalidated a fraction of a law passed by a legislature, a legislature consisting of mostly Christian men. If a legislature predominantly of men has the authority in your mind to pass a law mandating contraceptive coverage, then why wouldn’t a judiciary with a similar proportion of dicks be able to review said law? Double standard much?

              1. Saying closely held corporations can have religion is inventing new law out of whole cloth woven from crazy sheep.

                1. Dental liaise sylvan urchin caress nonverbal accelerant.

                  See? Anyone can string random words together to form a sentence meaning absolutely nothing. But I must admit, you are much better at it than I.

                2. I own an LLC. I’m the only owner of this LLC, making it a closely held corporation. Would it be “totally crazy” if I as the owner exercised my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the operation of my business?

                  The problem with this ruling is that people are being forced to buy something and that it takes supernatural beliefs to claim an exemption. I shouldn’t be forced to buy contraceptives or anything else because I’m a human being, not because I believe or don’t believe something that’s empirically untrue.

                3. So is saying that the government has the authority to require people to buy something, even healthcare. So we aren’t alone.

                4. Saying a small group of people who own a business can have religion is crazy? Interesting.

            3. “I’m saying the ruling seems to be treating contraceptives as deserving of special status with respect to religious beliefs

              No Tony. It’s treating the statutory language in the RFRA how it was intended to be treated. It treats this administrations demonstrable work around of the HHS mandate as proof of a less restrictive means to enforcement.

          2. It might not be unreasonable to assume that fundamentalist Muslims already enjoyed deference by virtue of their perpetual victim status.

            Or by virtue of their demonstrated willingness to commit violence when their religion is dissed.

            1. They’ve got more than one hand to play I’m sure.

    2. Burwell v Hobby Lobby was a statutory case, meaning the only thing being challenged here was the “least restrictive means” provision in the RFRA. You know, that bill that is so “extreme” that it passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97-3? That had the full support of the ACLU and religious groups alike, that was praised by Clinton, Reid, Schumer and Kennedy, the latter 3 of whom voted for it? Yeah, that one.

      Oddly enough, and it is referenced in the decision, is that the Obama administration had already made a work around for the exact religious exemption HL was seeking prior to this case making it to the SCOTUS. This is what we call a precedent, shithead. Seeing as the state had already demonstrated a way to enforce the HHS mandate that was “less restrictive” than what the law required the Green’s to do, the challenge was upheld, and correctly at that. That’s it.

      The Burwell v Hobby Lobby case no more restricts women’s access to contraceptives, including the 4 that Hobby Lobby objects to, any more than it restricts my access to monocles, footie pajamas, or beef jerky. This is simply part of the machinations that occur when you rush through comprehensive legislation loaded with bugs and unworkable or unconstitutional elements without the proper vetting that complex legislation requires.

      Now watch this drive.

  18. “I am a political independent, an atheist, and a supporter of abortion rights.I believe that because the mother’s?and only the mother’s?life is implicated in childbirth, she ought to have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant or proceed with a pregnancy.” – Shikha Dalmia

    1st. you are not an independent, you are a commie liberal.

    2nd. the fathers life is kinda implicated in childbirth. to ignore this shows you are at the very least a Feminist w/ a capital F. what about the man?

    3rd. WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER? you cunt? so a woman can just walk around get pregnant on her own? no dad? no sperm? no sex? MOTHER MARY FULL OF GRACE! you are retarded and once again, a commie liberal trying to pawn your bullshit off as independent thought. go to hell.

    -FFM

    1. You really are furious!

    2. So should men be able to force women to get pregnant against their will, or only force them to give birth against their will?

      1. As uncouth and poorly reasoned as FFM’s arguments are, he’s right in saying that the father is implicated in childbirth. In fact at least three people are involved in childbirth, because if one is missing, there is no childbirth.

        1st. No father no childbirth.

        2nd. No mother no childbirth.

        3rd. No child no childbirth.

        -B

        1. exactly.

        2. The argument is that women should “have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant or proceed with a pregnancy.” I’m sure Ms. Dalmia is aware of how the plumbing works.

          1. Wait, so you’re admitting that it’s a mother? But that would indicate that there is a child involved…

            1. Actually I did not use the word “mother.”

              1. Whoops, should have read more closely!

                1. The child is not human until the mother decides not to kill it.

          2. The argument is that women should “have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant

            No argument there.

            or proceed with a pregnancy.

            That’s where it gets tricky. The argument apparently is that women are entitled to an abortion until the baby mass of cells crowns? The cord is cut?

            No? Then we aren’t talking about a sole and unrestricted right, are we?

            1. If you as a libertarian want to make the case for why government should force women to give birth against their will, you can knock yourself out.

              1. Because it’s a human being and killing a person is an intrusion on their personal liberties.

                1. God, that was easy!

                  1. So government should force women to give birth against their will, when there are clearly more liberal alternatives (such as being pro-choice).

                    Sometimes I have no ideas what it means to be a libertarian.

                    1. Judging by your constant use of strawman arguments, I suspect that you never have a clue about what it means to be a libertarian.

                  2. Prove it’s a human being.

                    1. Prove that you’re a human being. There may already be a strike against your humanity if you view a fully formed fetus as non-human.

                    2. Last I checked, the product of the mating of a male and a female of the same species produces another member of the same species. Thus, the mating of a female human and a male human will produce an immature human.

                      The correct question to ask in this debate is: At what point does it become a person with rights?

                    3. The correct question to ask in this debate is: At what point does it become a person with rights?

                      Somewhere between fertilization and birth, that is for certain. To say that it’s not a person until it’s outside of it’s mom is sociopathy. To say that it’s a human worthy of rights from the moment sperm meets egg is quite evidently unreasonable. However, is it worse to be unreasonable, or a sociopath? It’s a question of both science and morality, and I myself am unresolved about the scientific question of when exactly moral rights ought to be awarded, so I err towards the safely moral choice.

                      Abortions for women within a week or so doesn’t seem too immoral and abortions at least a few months before the 9 month mark are clearly immoral. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable or immoral position.

          3. Whose arguing for forced impregnation? And Dalmia didn’t simply say that only the mother can choose, she said only the mother can choose because her life is the only one impacted. Typically it’s a bad move to predicate your argument on objectively false claims.

          4. And they can very well pay for it on their own dime.

  19. I’m a stickler for topic sentences. How does the Hobby Lobby decision amount to giving away a subsidy? I that think people should be judged on their actions and when I look at the women employees of Hobby Lobby celebrating the fact that they’ll now have to pay $20 a week for their IUDs then I feel comfortable calling those people stupid.
    If my employer raised my health care costs by $20 a week and I was making close to minimum wage I’d be a.) on the phone with my local SEIU union rep and b.) filling out a Costco job application form, but then again I don’t believe that a.) Jesus loves me or b.) that Obama is a radical socialist (I wish).

    1. How do you think insurance works?

      1. Just so we are clear… You think a negotiated benefit package with your employer is a subsidy. I’ll be sure to tell my HR department about this.

        1. Oh so items mandated by the government are ” negociated”?

        2. AS, like you said, you can just go work at Costco if you don’t like your employer’s benefits package. The free market takes care of this problem itself.

    2. Thank you for your great free market argument! I mean that part where you’d go fill out an application for Costco…

    3. when I look at the women employees of Hobby Lobby celebrating the fact that they’ll now have to pay $20 a week for their IUDs then I feel comfortable calling those people stupid.

      I suspect the women celebrating this decision aren’t buying any IUDs for themselves, and are happy not to be buying them for someone else.

    4. If my employer raised my health care costs by $20 a week and I was making close to minimum wage I’d be a.) on the phone with my local SEIU union rep

      I love that your first reaction to having to pay for something yourself is to enlist government force to take from others at the point of a gun. Pathetic.

    5. Thanks Obama: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F…..-15866.pdf

    6. why would one IUD cost $20 a week?

  20. So if this is such a travesty, why don’t dems pass legislation that requires all doctors to give away all forms of birth control to any woman for free and to bill medicaid which will autopay those bills?

    1. Who’s saying they won’t?

    2. That’s pretty much the logic of the opinion: If “access” to IUDs are a “compelling state interest,” the federal government can accomplish this goal in a way that does not burden people’s first amendment rights. Buying the contraceptives for women is one option.

      1. Since the government is buying such goodies with tax money, it is forcing religious folk to pay for stuff they don’t agree with. Hell the existence of the government itself is a violation of freedom of association supposedly protected by the first amendment.

  21. I am not sure I agree with the idea that Hobby Lobby is paying for it’s employee’s abortions. Via the Affordable Care Act, healthcare is now a required form of compensation for most larger employers. It is payment in kind and is part of contract formed upon hire. We wouldn’t be tempted to say that because some portion of its employees buy drugs with their income Hobby Lobby is somehow paying for it’s employees drugs. So why, because the required healthcare package provides participants the POSSIBILITY of abortion reimbursement, do we say that Hobby Lobby is paying for abortions?

    How does this sort of interpretation work in practice? Can Christian Scientist now opt to provide no coverage because their religion doesn’t support the use of modern medicine? I know the response from this community will likely be, “Well these sorts of problems are exactly why government shouldn’t be mandating behavior.” But they are! There is a simple interpretation that satisfies the intent of the Affordable Care Act and Hobby Lobby’s rights: The way that private citizens use their income, in cash or kind, does not constitute a violation of the employer’s rights. There is no reason it should.

    1. Let’s say the case went the other way.

      Assuming the Green’s beliefs are genuine, and the honestly feel they would be complicit in murder, and would go to hell, if they provided the mandated insurance, what do you think they would do?

      Either they condemn themselves ot everlasting torment in hell, or they close up shop and go out of business.

      Now, do you WANT a society in which people with incorrect religious beliefs are forced to essentially shut down and cease participating in commerce in order to avoid performing what they consider to be mortal sins?

      1. Yes. I want people who pretend to have sincere beliefs about bullshit and then force that bullshit on other people to put up or shut up. They covered these methods before the issue was politicized. The methods are not abortion-inducing. So they have an insincere belief about something that isn’t even true.

        I dare people to choose deities over profit. I’d have some measure of respect for that. But they’re making their employees suffer for their stupid nonsense (but only the women).

        1. So I’m curious…if you don’t think their belief is sincere, what exactly do you think their motive is (saving millions of dollars by not covering four out of twenty birth control methods?) and exactly what difference would it make under the law? Firstly, the Supreme Court, probably rightly, is very wary of deciding what is a “sincere” religious belief and what is not, since that’s an enormous can of worms. Secondly, if their case was shot down on the basis of insincerity, it would just have to be reopened the first time an actually sincere plaintiff came along.

          1. I don’t think their belief is sincere because prior to the ACA their insurance plans already covered the methods in question. I believe their objection comes from rightwing politics more than their alleged direct line to Yahweh.

            I agree that the SC shouldn’t be in the business of determining what counts as a sincere belief. But that’s exactly what it did here and the whole point of what I’m talking about. Sincerity should be irrelevant since for-profit corporations shouldn’t be considered persons with the ability to have religious beliefs.

            1. IOT:

              “Waaah! I’m a socialist, and I didn’t get what I wanted! Boo hoo!”

              Here: it’s the world’s smallest violin. And, it’s playing, just for you.

            2. Sincerity should be irrelevant since for-profit corporations shouldn’t be considered persons with the ability to have religious beliefs.

              They’re not. Their owners, however, are.

              I defy you to explain how a mandate on the business entity somehow imposes no obligation on its owners. Who the fuck do you think signs the checks?

              1. Their employees are people too, and maybe they don’t want their bosses interfering with their legal rights because Jesus gives them an exemption. *Samuel Alito looks confused*

        2. The methods are not abortion-inducing.

          This is a stupid fucking talking point that does not get less fucking stupid with repetition.

          The methods sometimes prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. The Greens, who believe life begins at conception, regard this as the moral equivalent of abortion.

          What the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say about the matter — “Pregnancy doesn’t really begin until uterine implantation, so those drugs aren’t really functionally abortifacients, and please don’t ask us why we we changed our mind about this in 1970, because it might make us look like a bunch of ideologues rather than the dispassionate medical professionals we’re posing as.” — is entirely irrelevant.

        3. Funny how that logic does NOT apply to your socialist friends when it comes to the tax code. They sure like to take all those deductions they think should be capped. Why, even Barry likes him some free charitable givin’!

          Put up or shut up.

        4. And that’s why you are a fascist, Tony.

    2. But the employer is a party to what the in kind payment will be. That’s what in kind compensation is. In this case, the Greens’ closely held corp is the one buying the insurance plan, and they have a moral objection to agreeing to a plan that includes these 3 kinds of contraception. And according to the RFRA, an executive agency forcing them to buy the plan anyway is a violation of their rights.

  22. Making a check of $48500/month with online working,, you make money $81/hour from laptop in free time.My neighbour’s sister has been averaging $15750/months now and she works about 20 hours a week. i make $13900 last month, it is realy easy and trustful ,
    ======== W?W?W?.?MONEYKIN?.?C?O?M?

    1. Since this is a bot post, why are there errors?

      1. It is a product of healthcare.gov?

  23. This is why I love Libertarianism in general…even though the author disagrees with the conclusions reached by Hobby Lobby in regards to abortifacients/abortion/religion in general, they are still willing to defend their rights. Both the Rep. and Dem. parties seem more interested in pushing their version of utopia on society than protecting the freedoms that founded it.

  24. While I agree that these employees (NO employees) should be required to pay tribute to unions, I’m a bit puzzled at the soppy tone about the program in question. These folks are being paid to care for relatives in their homes, and it’s a program fraught with fraud. Requiring the worker to call in and check out is no big deal.

  25. I believe that because the mother’s?and only the mother’s?life is implicated in childbirth, she ought to have the sole and unrestricted right to decide whether to get pregnant or proceed with a pregnancy.

    And do you also believe that since the mother, and only the mother, has the authority to decide whether or not to abort, that the biological father should not be required to pay for the mother’s decision NOT to abort? That is, are you calling for the unequivocal end of all child support payments by men?

  26. The Left in general wants equality. The extreme Left wants equality of outcomes. You cannot have equality of outcomes without putting a cap on liberty, since natural talent alone can cause an imbalance there.

    Only by placing a cap defined by the lowest common denominator can you ever achieve truly equal outcomes.

  27. //The Left in general wants equality

    I think the article above disproves that. I’m pretty sure taking away what little money the government gives a poor fucking mother who has to spend 100% of her LIFE tending to her kid is not very egalitarian

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.