Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Tyranny of 'Reproductive Freedom'

Accommodating religious objections to Obamacare's contraceptive mandate does not violate anyone's rights.

President Trump says an executive order he signed last Thursday protects religious freedom, while his critics say it undermines reproductive freedom. If both freedoms are understood as rights that must be respected, someone has to be wrong here, and for once it isn't Trump.

The executive order tells federal officials to "consider issuing amended regulations" addressing "conscience-based objections" to an Obamacare mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage that includes all FDA-approved contraceptives. For religious reasons, some employers do not want to be implicated in subsidizing, encouraging, facilitating, or condoning either contraception in general or the methods they view as tantamount to abortion.

Because of such concerns, the Obama administration exempted churches and related organizations involved in exclusively religious activity from the contraceptive mandate. But any religious organization that offers social services or engages in other nonsectarian activities has to notify its insurer if it objects to the contraception requirement, at which point the insurer is supposed to provide the coverage independently, at no additional cost to the employer or employee.

For groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic order that runs homes for low-income elderly people, that workaround is unacceptable, because they believe the form they must send to insurers makes them complicit in sin. Trump's order is largely aimed at addressing that complaint.

The order could also help religious business owners. In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the government to accommodate the objections of "closely held for-profit corporations" whose owners balk at the contraceptive mandate for religious reasons.

What might these religious accommodations look like? Last year a unanimous Supreme Court suggested one likely possibility in response to the legal challenges brought by Little Sisters of the Poor and other faith-based organizations.

Instead of forcing employers to express their religious objections in forms filed with their insurers or the government, the Court proposed, why not treat their purchase of health plans that do not include contraceptives as the signal for insurers to provide that coverage separately? The Court, while sending the cases back to the appeals courts for further consideration, said such an approach, which both the plaintiffs and the government agreed was feasible, "accommodates petitioners' religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners' health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'"

If Trump's order results in a solution along these lines, it will have no perceptible impact on women's contraceptive coverage, even if it includes businesses as well as religious organizations. But you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you saw the alarmist statements issued by the order's critics.

"President Trump's executive order discriminates against women and robs them of essential preventive care," claimed Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Without health coverage of contraception under the ACA, countless women will lose their basic right to prevent pregnancy and plan when they have children."

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, warned that the executive order will "encourage employers to use religion as a pretext to deny women the care they need." Amanda Klasing, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, said "this order will take away many women's access to affordable family planning options."

Such comments not only grossly exaggerate the practical consequences of accommodating religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. They fundamentally misconstrue the interests at stake, erroneously equating freedom from coercion with a claim on other people's resources.

The "basic right to prevent pregnancy" does not imply a right to free contraception, any more than the right to freedom of speech implies a right to free Internet service or the right to armed self-defense implies a right to free guns. A system in which you can force other people to subsidize your choices, even when it means violating their religious convictions, looks a lot more like tyranny than freedom.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Photo Credit: picture alliance / Jochen Eckel/Newscom

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.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Or, the company could pay the employee the money that would have been spent on health insurance and allow that employee to go select and purchase anything they wish.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    One thing that is interesting to me is the increasing lack of distinction in peoples minds between health care and health insurance.

    I saw a post on FB the other day that said something like "Universal Health Care: Not a Radical Idea" and then showed all the nations that have it. One of them was Turkey, and the person who posted it said, "EVEN TURKEY HAS BETTER HEALTHCARE THAN US."

    And I was just thinking, is that in anyway true? In many of these places the government may make some claim to pay, but what is the quality and availability of the services rendered.

    Insurance is a strange thing, and I feel like people don't really have any particular idea on what it is.

  • Michael Hihn||

    " … the increasing lack of distinction in peoples minds between health care and health insurance"

    Also now infecting most of the libertarian movement. Stossel does it in today's Reason. Repeal Medicaid, recite some free-market slogans. Government haters NEVER ask, "How would a free market work?" With health care for the poor, we had a free market as late as LBJ .

    Liberty lovers learn what outcomes we had, to set goals for now. We had universal TREATMENT (your point) Charity Hospitals were actually that. I'm an atheist, but I KNOW religious hospitals never turned anyone away (like Stossel does) . When I gave that spiel to my doctor, she grinned. "It would be a sin." BINGO!

    FACT: Progressives are the ONLY ones CLAIMING to provide what Americans have always wanted and freely paid for. They overdo coverage instead of treatment, but what have we got? Not a damn thing. Stossel repeals Medicaid , doesn't give a shit about treatment because slogans/ He RIDICULES progressives. – who are kicking his ass (and ours) in the real world of heath CARE
    .
    After 50 years, we can't even show a better way to do what's being done now. We extol free markets, but ignore their outcomes. Romance private charities, with no idea of what they did. And a long-ignored Cato survey found 59% are libertarian …but 91% of THEM refuse to call themselves libertarians. A libertarian moment? Or the Eve of Destruction?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Let's put the government in charge of cell phones and let the market handle health care.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Let's put the government in charge of cell phones"

    I suppose that's one way of dealing with the idiots who prioritize running their ratchet-jaw over trivia like driving, or being polite in theaters.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for proving my poiint.
    Also why 91% of libertarians refuse to be labeled as libertarian. (59% of voters are libertarian)

  • MarkLastname||

    If you favor socialized health care, you're not a libertarian. I'm not one of those 'anyone who isn't an ancap isn't a real libertarian' people; but if you favor nationalizing of a fifth of the economy (probably a quarter of it in a few years), then you're not much closer to being a libertarian than to being a socialist.

    I'm also willing to bet most of the people who want to nationalize health care are also amenable to the idea of nationalizing the banking industry, and likely a few other big ones.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for proving my poiint.
    Also why 91% of libertarians refuse to be labeled as libertarian. (59% of voters are libertarian)

  • ||

    With health care for the poor, we had a free market as late as LBJ .
    ...
    After 50 years, we can't even show a better way to do what's being done now. We extol free markets, but ignore their outcomes. Romance private charities, with no idea of what they did.

    "MAGA!" - Michael Hihn

  • Brandybuck||

    Well if you actually listen you can hear how markets can improve both the provision and financing of healthcare. Sticking your fingers in your years while chanting "where's your plan? where's your plan?" does not mean there haven't been repeated serious proposals for market reforms in healthcare. You just refuse to look at them.

    Jeepers Cripes and his mom Geez Louse! We have entire BOOKS on this topic!!!!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well if you actually listen you can hear how markets can improve both the provision and financing of healthcare

    All I hear is wind.

    Thyre haven't been repeated serious proposals for market reforms in healthcare. You just refuse to look at them.

    Actually, I challenge you to name one, so I can 'splain why you're wrong. (I've read far more of them than you)

    Jeepers Cripes and his mom Geez Louse! We have entire BOOKS on this topic!!!!

    Describe just one.
    So you have two things to prove. None of them will be as effective ... and achievable ... as the index on this single, short, web page.

    http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

    While chanting "where's your plan? where's your plan?

    I just linked to my plan. All you have is platitudes, soundbites and ... that wind I hear.

    You probably even think Medicare Vouchers make sense..

  • MarkLastname||

    So you've read John Goodman's (of the Independent Institute) works on the matter? What about the economist John Cochrane's ideas about healthcare reform?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Response is boldface because Mark has been stalking and bullying me for over 8 months now, apparently still triggered because the precious snowflake was embarrassed by his blind tribal acceptance on Social Security. He STILL refuses to provide the proof he PROMISED for his massive screwup ... BEFORE I called him out on it).

    So you've read John Goodman's (of the Independent Institute) works on the matter

    Umm. Goodman is the founding chief executive of the National Center for Policy Analysis .,.. where he became known as "the father of Health Savings Accounts."
    Anything else you'd like to learn about him?

    The link I provided covers a much broader view of healthcare overall -- published over 20 year ago, but STILL ahead of Cato .... even clarifying a few principles where many libertarians have been mislead and/or confused -- Like your own witless swallowing of Social Security privatization, based on free-market slogans devoid of both substance and common sense.

  • jmg09||

    No, that's way too much freedom. The peasants can't handle that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Separation of Church and State? Gary Johnson and Barry Goldwater exposed the moral hypocrisy here.
    There can be no special privileges based on religion and denied to others. This is not as blatant as a special tax loophole for tax-exempt religious nonprofits ... but no other nonprofits.

    Here, what the Little Sisters "feel" CANNOT have a CONSTITUTIONAL standard ... because we'd then have different cconstitution for every religious nonprofit in the country. Ummm, equal rights? You CANNOT claim that religious "feeling" is greater than a worker's liberty, without violatung over 300 years of Natural Law and our First Amendment.

    Barry Goldwater said the Moral Majority was a threat to his party, and that threat has now infected much of the libertarian movement. Goldwater's reason was that legislation requires compromise ... in a diverse society ... with conflicting rights ,,, and NO right being absolute. As Barry saw so early, the Christian Theocrats DEMAND everything be ENTIRELY their own way .. which is Superior rights NOT Equal Rights. Gary Johnson added that "special:" rights CANNOT exist in a society of individual liberty and equal rights, duh

    Religious liberty cannot override ANY other liberty, else it become a SPECIAL right for a privileged elite. So cut the crap. And religion CANNOT be the standard because Separation.

    It ain't just progs demanding special rights. This is WAY below Jacob's history. In parts,shameful.

  • FreeRadical||

    "You CANNOT claim that religious "feeling" is greater than a worker's liberty"

    You actually make some good points, but the quote above is a sticking point. How do you define worker's liberty? Nobody has a "natural" right to other peoples' stuff. Liberty does not include free contraceptives. This is Sullum's entire point.

  • Blue Star||

    Which stands if the Little Sisters of the Poor were protesting against "free stuff" No, they were protesting that asking them to state that they object is making them complicit in sin.

    "natural" right? WTF is that? And how did stuff become someone's stuff? Naturally? or "Naturally"?

  • FreeRadical||

    I put natural in scare quotes because not everyone thinks that is a valid theory of rights. I shouldn't have done that because I think it is valid.

    "how did stuff become someone's stuff?" Are you one of those people that doesn't believe in private property?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sorry, the date says I missed that. Property rights are of course included in Natural Rights. Not sure why you'd ask, but let's defend the principle we seem to share.

    Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness" as an Epicurean, which the educated founders understood, where property rights are among MANY (unenumerated) rights toward the happiness of being (philosophical) The far left screeched that Jefferson switched from property because he owned slaves -- typically crazy, since he thought slaves were property!

    Slavery had existed for thousands of years of known history, sanctioned in the Holy Bible, and even earlier. But we eliminated it in 90 years, the blinking of an eye. Shame? No, Americans can take PRIDE in that.

    I've been libertarian since the very month we began, September 1960, the original student protests were TOTALLY anti-authority, college administrations and regulations at the time. I was also civil rights and anti-war, but they hitched onto a movement we had already begun.

    Pro-liberty libertarianism tends to be shouted down these days by anti-government hatred, but the archive of my published writing is here. http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

    Compare Taxes and Health Care with the dominant bullshit in today's libertarianism for a VERY clear difference between liberty lovers (creators) and government haters (destroyers).

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which stands if the Little Sisters of the Poor were protesting against "free stuff"

    Why?

    No, they were protesting that asking them to state that they object is making them complicit in sin.

    They have no moral basis for that, according to even Aquinas They have NO rights greater than their workers' right to Liberty.

    "natural" right? WTF is that?

    Natural Rights describe the principle that riights are inherent to humankind and unalienable. Here's a formal version.

    Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws

    The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, ... It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and was then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas

    So the Little Sisters claim toi faith is direct conflict with the Catholic philosophers mentioned, a moral principle for thousands of years. .

    And how did stuff become someone's stuff?

    Only relevantr here (I think) because property rights are also Natural Rights and thus coequal to all the others. (????)

  • MarkLastname||

    "Worker's right to liberty." You didn't finish your sentence. Liberty to do what? What were the Little Sisters trying to prevent their workers from doing? Did they bar them from the doors of the pharmacies?

    No, they were never violating or threatening to violate the rights of their workers in any way, any more than I'm violating your right to eat right now by not buying you a cheese burger. Nor should they have to state a reason for it, any more than they should have to state a reason for not buying every employee a free umbrella or toaster. And if the workers don't like this arrangement, they are free to resign. The only party here whose liberty is at stake is the Little Sisters, and it is the state that is threatening it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Worker's right to liberty." You didn't finish your sentence.

    You don't know what liberty mean either?

    Liberty to do what

    "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" .... TO DO WHAT?????????????????????

  • Michael Hihn||

    The only party here whose liberty is at stake is the Little Sisters, and it is the state that is threatening it.

    (lol) You've already PROVEN that you don't even know what "liberty" is!!!!

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6841789

    But I both respect and defend YOUR liberty to remain a gasbag for as long as you choose.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How do you define worker's liberty?

    Good question. Identical to everyone else's liberty. I could have placed it more clearly within the context of all fundamental rights being unalienable thus equal. I intended worker to be THEIR worker (the Susters), whixh is where the rights conflict.

    I REALLY appreciate your question. I'm a political writer and must draft in a dialog, not in my mind. Point being, I consider the correction yoiu pointed me too as significant to the message. This is one of those topics where it can be difficult to avoid fueling passions! Either side.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The primary concern of Separation if Church and State was the State presuming to have a say in governing churches. Where the Founders had come from was a situation where the Head of State presimed to be Head of the Church. Your argument turns Separation on it head puts the State in charge of the churches and make freedom of religion a dead letter.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I reply to Mickey Rat in boldf, for maximum visibility of so many needed corrections.

    What is the intent of the First Amendment? Jefferson described a Wall of Separation between Church and State. BOTH Freedom-OfAND Freedom-From religion. Walls keep BOTH sides separate.

    Some disagree. Mickey Rat states their view. The Constitution guarantees ONLY Freedom-Of practicing religion. Nobody has Freedom-From Religion. His freedom, not ours,

    The primary concern of Separation of Church and State was the State presuming to have a say in governing churches.

    Denies freedom FROM religion. Falsely.

    Your argument turns Separation on it head puts the State in charge of the churches and make freedom of religion a dead letter

    Bluntly, that's a lie … about an Amendment he never read. He accepts somebody else's word, presumably a church leader.

    If Mickey reads it now, he will learn: (my emphasis)

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Freedom-Of AND Freedom-From WHY?

    Many settlers came here to escape religious persecution by a united church and state. The (un)Holy Inquisition was still raging at our founding, committing church/state atrocities until roughly our Civil War. The Salem Witchcraft Trials were our own atrocity.

    NOW will Micky accept the truth?

  • Brandybuck||

    The problem is not the religious morality, the problem is that government has made it mandatory to provide a particular class of service. People then call this service a "right" and wring their hands that there's now a conflict. There is no conflict of rights. Taxpayer provided contraception is not a right!

    if someone wants a contraceptive they should have to right to go out and buy it, but they have no right to demand that someone else buy it or subsidize it or even put it within easy reach on a shelf.

    Half of these products should be available over the counter anyway.

  • FreeRadical||

    It seems like every time a conservative or libertarian puts forth a proposal to make the pill available over the counter, it's the progressives who oppose it. Even though having it OTC would empower women to make their own choices independent of any bureaucracy.

    In this, the progressives' masks slip. They aren't concerned at all about women's welfare. They are only concerned with having causes that increase their own power and enable them to control people.

    Of course, most of us know this obvious truth. But it helps to have a specific example to point it out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There is no conflict of rights.

    Nor is there any "special" rights which are only available to Christians and/or their organizations -- as claimed by those supporting Little Sisters,

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Michael Hindered,

    Religious liberty cannot override ANY other liberty,


    The article is not talking about one liberty overriding the other. The article talls about the idea that an entitlement overrides a liberty.

    Your assessment is thus wrong.

    Besides this, mandates on businessess do not equate to worker's freedoms. You're merely equivocating.

  • Michael Hihn||

    OldMexican Blankety Blank|5.10.17 @ 2:36PM|#
    Re: Michael Hindered,

    Fuck you. (a response to bullying by 12-year-old)
    I'll respect a corrected comment.

  • ThomasD||

    "...Obama administration exempted churches and related organizations involved in exclusively religious activity..."

    "Exclusively religious activity" is an affront to liberty and an insult to intelligence.

    That such a formulation came from a statist like Obama should be an everlasting rebuke to everyone who made or bought into the 'libertarian case for Obama.'

  • Michael Hihn||

    That such a formulation came from a statist like Obama

    Take a deep breath,

    That such a formulation came from a statist like Obama should be an everlasting rebuke to everyone who made or bought into the 'libertarian case for Obama.

    YES! The Muslim cocksucker allowed himself to by bullied by the Christina Taliban.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, after you eliminate ALL government policy content mandates, and allow people to choose their own policies, all of this goes away.
    Then maybe men, and women without reproductive capacity, will not HAVE to purchase maternity coverage.
    And women will not have to purchase prostate coverage.
    Ans a whole bunch of other market distorting, expense raising foolishness.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Of course, after you eliminate ALL government policy content mandates, and allow people to choose their own policies, all of this goes awayOf course, that's true, but meaningless. Another massive fuckign failure by the libertarians establishment. Liberty could have never advanced as far as it has, if all we had was people reciting slogans.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Jacob could use a refresher course in differential equations--or a peek at the population growth curve. Religious fanatics busily infiltrating the LP and reverse-engineering their interpretation of our ethical premises to brainwash Reason journalists never mention the 100000 in population increase since midnight of a morning. If Jacob were struck by Ebola or Yellow Fever, the government subsidized CDC would suddenly seem a lot less oppressive. The entire medical profession was transformed into a pack of lying perjurers for coercion in exchange for using the Harrison Tax Act to ruin a few competitors--the root cause of unaffordable healthcare. So where is our Reason champion for deregulation of the medical profession? for eliminating all government-subsidized measures against bacteriological attacks? Ayn Rand warned against libertarian pandering to christianofascism, and I'm damned if I can find a more accurate description for this suicidal shift in priorities.

  • ace_m82||

    Religious fanatics busily infiltrating the LP...

    Did not consider myself to be "infiltrating" as much as "agreeing with"...

    never mention the 100000 in population increase since midnight of a morning

    More demand for infant adoptions than supply. Look up that stat. Also, when you actually have to deal with the consequences of your behavior, you change your behavior. But none of that matters, because we're (neither Christians nor libertarians) not Utilitarians.

    Ayn Rand warned against libertarian pandering to christianofascism

    There are "Christians" (word used very loosely) who act fascist, yes, just like there are all kinds in religions and non-religions who do the same. Abusus non tollit usum.

    But the implication that telling people that they have freedom of conscious ("religion") to not be forced to do evil is not "pandering to christianofascism", any more than defending free speech is pandering to lovers of Mein Kampf. Logical consistency is important, no?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Religious fanatics busily infiltrating the LP...

    Did not consider myself to be "infiltrating" as much as "agreeing with"..

    NOW you admit to being a religious fanatic? Or are you a recent conversion since all the denials?

  • ace_m82||

    Hi Hihn! How have you been doing?

    Up until I posted, I'd seen all the posts here, noted that you had said some stuff, but nothing (as of that time) that was wrong enough to be worth responding to. But now you've responded to me. So here goes.

    NOW you admit to being a religious fanatic? Or are you a recent conversion since all the denials?

    Fanatic, adjective: filled with or expressing excessive zeal. I am a follower of he who drove out the money changers from his Father's Temple and of whom it was said "zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me", so yes, calling me zealous, and I guess "fanatic" (any negative connotations omitted) would describe me well enough. And even if I were to object to the term due to the negative connotations, telling that to the obvious atheist Hank Phillips seems like a waste of time. It seemed better to show why his point made no sense rather than try to get him to avoid name-calling. The thing I should object to would be the "religious" part, as the New Testament only uses the term once in a positive way. Again, this is how he would understand me best so why argue it?

    The point isn't what someone calls me, though, it's about adhering to the concept of "do unto others" and "do not steal" and "do not murder" (as well as "an eye for an eye", known as "justice"). Refusing to initiate force, NAP, is the way by which I attempt to fulfill that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    A religious fanatic who shits on the Holy Words of Jesus Christ?
    The Bible also commands you to kill all the infidels, including your brother, wife, child or friend.
    So your "zeal" reveals the immense moral HYPOCRISY of deciding for yourself which words of God and Christ to follow and which to ignore. A religious fanatic who holds himself ABOVE the entire Holy Trinity.

    Repent! Renounce the anti-Christ. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Beg His forgiveness.

    Christ also taught, "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others..... do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."

    I ask again, why do you defend using the state to impose bigotry on homosexuals --- justified by not initiating force --- a severe moral hypocrisy, which David Nolan saw and updated nearly 50 years ago.

    In both religion and politics, self-righteousness is the true sign of zealots and fanatics. True Believers.

    "Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers."
    -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)

  • ace_m82||

    Just can't help yourself, now can you Hihn? Let's look at what you have to say.

    The Bible also commands you to kill all the infidels, including your brother, wife, child or friend.

    No, it doesn't. Let's look at the Scripture:

    "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess--as long as you live in the land." Deuteronomy 12:1 (very similar passages in Deuteronomy 12:28 and Deuteronomy 4:40).

    So these laws only apply to Ancient Hebrews living in Palestine, until the time God removed them from the land. Why are these laws just? Well:

    "The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers." Leviticus 25:23

    So the land is God's, and he is the land owner. Land owner gets to make the rules. If there were squatters on your land sacrificing their children on an alter (with fire), you'd also be within your rights to kill them, or at least drive them off your land.

    So, basically, you're an atheist attempting to lecture me on what Scripture says, and doing it quite poorly.

    I ask again, why do you defend using the state to impose bigotry on homosexuals

    I'm an An-Cap. I don't defend the state doing anything, at all. Try again.

    Hihn, sincerely:

    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PROOF: ATHEIST KNOWS BIBLE BETTER THAN SANCTIMONIOUS HYPOCRITE

    the Bible also commands you to kill all the infidels, including your brother, wife, child or friend.

    No, it doesn't. Let's look at the Scripture:

    GOTCHA! You cite Deuteronomy 12 ... NOT DEUTERONOMY 13! (OMG)

    " . and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods and let us worship them," … That prophet or dreamer must be put to death.

    If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods"… You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

    EXACTLY as I said! Barbaric,

    So, basically, you're an atheist attempting to lecture me on what Scripture says, and doing it quite poorly.

    (smirk) MORE ...

    it's about adhering to the concept of "do unto others" and "do not steal" and "do not murder" (as well as "an eye for an eye", known as "justice").

    A religious fanatic who shits on the Holy Words of Jesus Christ?

    No response! And we all know why!!

    BLASPHEMER! Renounce the anti-Christ. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Beg His forgiveness.

  • ace_m82||

    GOTCHA!

    Yes, you "got" something, that's for sure.

    As for Deuteronomy 13, I've already shown that the land is God's, and his to do as he saw fit. Those Israelites were not forced to stay on the land if they wanted to go their own way, but if they were on God's land, they followed God's rules. Property rights.

    And all the people committed to the agreement in Exodus 19:8, they were commanded to renew it when they reached the land in Deuteronomy 27, and finally did it in Joshua 24.

    No response!

    Well, if that bit of needless cursing actually was a question, I just answered you. Those commands were for only Ancient Hebrews in Palestine, as the Scripture plainly states.

    You no longer object to marriage equality?

    Your new logical fallacy: Loaded question. I've never objected to marriage "equality". Government has no place in marriage (or anything else, for that matter).

    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
    and give you peace.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BIGGER lies by Sanctimonious One

    As for Deuteronomy 13, I've already shown

    Liar. You asserted. and DENIED the scripture:

    the Bible also commands you to kill all the infidels, including your brother, wife, child or friend.

    No, it doesn't. Let's look at the Scripture:
    So, basically, you're an atheist attempting to lecture me on what Scripture says, and doing it quite poorly.

    1) Which version is the lie? Why does an atheist know it and you denied it?

    it's about adhering to the concept of "do unto others" and "do not steal" and "do not murder" (as well as "an eye for an eye", known as "justice").

    A religious fanatic who shits on the Holy Words of Jesus Christ?
    No response! And we all know why!!
    ((((Lies about that question: changes subject)))
    ---
    No response!

    Well, if that bit of needless cursing actually was a question, I just answered you. Those commands were for only Ancient Hebrews in Palestine, as the Scripture plainly states.

    WHY DOES HE SHIT ON THE HOLY WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST, refuse to answer, then lie about the question?

    I've never objected to marriage "equality"

    (sigh) Have you changed your position on marriage between homosexuals

  • ace_m82||

    Liar. You asserted. and DENIED the scripture:

    I showed you precisely where it says that only applies to Ancient Hebrews in Palestine. Deuteronomy 12:1, Deuteronomy 12:28, and Deuteronomy 4:40 (and add in Leviticus 25:23 in there too). I know this makes your whole view of all Christians incorrect, but the truth can do that.

    Which version is the lie? Why does an atheist know it and you denied it?

    I didn't say you lied. I said you were wrong. It's right there in plain English.

    WHY DOES HE SHIT ON THE HOLY WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST, refuse to answer, then lie about the question?

    I don't. I don't know why you try to be such a hassle about that which you know so very little about. I'm guessing a "Christian" kicked your dog, or something.

    Have you changed your position on marriage between homosexuals

    No. It's none of government's business, and no force should be applied to anyone who "marries" or calls something "marriage". Right and wrong have precious little to do with what government should do.

    Again, Hihn:

    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
    and give you peace.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Psycho liar for Jesus. AGAIN lies about the proof.

    ACTUAL CITE. Christian Taliban Bully DENIES he proof

    Tthe Bible also commands you to kill all the infidels, including your brother, wife, child or friend.

    No, it doesn't. Let's look at the Scripture:
    you're an atheist attempting to lecture me on what Scripture says, and doing it quite poorly.
    GOTCHA! You cite Deuteronomy 12 ... NOT DEUTERONOMY 13! (OMG)
    " . and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods and let us worship them," … That prophet or dreamer must be put to death.

    If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods"… You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.


    Atheist knows Bible better than Sanctimonious One .... who lies about scripture ... as Christ weeps in silent shame. The Christian Taliban.

    And atheist REPEATS!!!!!! (OMG)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Atheist AGAIN knows Bible better than Self-Righteous Bully

    Ignorant Christian:
    ...it's about adhering to the concept of "do unto others" and "do not steal" and "do not murder" (as well as "an eye for an eye", known as "justice").

    Informed Atheist
    A religious fanatic who shits on the Holy Words of Jesus Christ?

    He takes the bait ... with more Bullying For Jessus!!
    I don't. I don't know why you try to be such a hassle about that which you know so very little about. I'm guessing a "Christian" kicked your dog, or something.

    (smirk) YOU just kicked Jesus Christ
    SELF-RIGHTEOUS BULLY DOES NOT KNOW CHRIST'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT!!! (OMG)

    Matthew 5:38
    38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
    If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

    Christ sought SUBMISSION.
    The entire Western concepts of Self-Defense and Justice comes from ... Muhammad.

    BLASPHEMER! Renounce the anti-Christ. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Beg His forgiveness

    One more ....

  • Michael Hihn||

    Christ also mocked the self-righteous. Like you.

    The anti-christ:

    Again, Hihn
    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
    and give you peace.

    While lying through his teeth, to an atheist who shamed his ignorance of the Bible ... as Christ weeps in silent shame.

    The actual Christ

    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others..... do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."

    Even this atheist has more respect for the teachings Jesus Christ -- who taught a loving and forgiving God ... compared with the self-righteous pricks who use Christ to club people, but don't know His longest and most detailed Sermon ... on the Mount.

    THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS WERE NEVER ANOINTED TO RAIN DOWN HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE .... ALSO IN DEFIANCE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
    ARE YOU REALLY WITHOUT SIN? (SNEER)

  • ace_m82||

    Christ also mocked the self-righteous. Like you.

    I am by no means righteous by myself. Only God and I know how unrighteous I am without him. But you will call anyone who has God's righteousness evil to suit your own worldview.

    In fact, my blessing of you is completely in following with another Scripture (from the sermon on the mount) you don't know:

    "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." Luke 6:28

    So I bless you, HIhn, and will continue to do so.

    compared with the self-righteous pricks who use Christ to club people

    Please, do pray tell, in what way have I used Christ to "club" others? Good luck with that one.

    ARE YOU REALLY WITHOUT SIN?

    "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:8-9

    It isn't that I am without sin, Hihn, it is that Christ sent his Son, his precious one, to die for me, and for the rest of us, while we were still shaking our fists at him in rebellion. While we deserved nothing but death, he took that death on himself (justice is repayment) to save us, if we would only accept that he paid it for himself. We have done nothing to deserve this free gift and our works can never be good enough. He loves us more than you can understand, Hihn. He loves even me!

    The Lord Bless you!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for allowing me to bait you into proving your self-righteousness hypocrisy, blatant lies and distortions. I now have a link to the thread which proves it to anyone who cares to check.

    It isn't that I am without sin, Hihn,

    Then you again shit on the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ by casting the first stone ....repeatedly ... for several days.

    "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

    Purge your heart of the raging hatred, which has brought you to false prophets in both politics and religion.

    There's still time to repent, renounce the anti-christ, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior -- I've already posted the Scripture where He describes the difference between actual deeds and mere words -- and beg His forgiveness.

    And here. or all to see -- your shame in an atheist knowing the Holy Bible better than you ... including the "inconvenient" passages you falsely claim do not exists.

    You have now betrayed the Gospel three times, a Judas for the Internet Age, more to be pitied than scorned.

    (Boldface STILL in response to serial aggression by a cyber-bully.)

  • ace_m82||

    Thanks for allowing me to bait you into proving your self-righteousness hypocrisy, blatant lies and distortions.

    I answered someone else, you butted in, and proved that giving you new information on what Scripture actually says makes literally no difference to what you believe. You continue in your error regardless of any fact, reason, or logic.

    Then you again shit on the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ by casting the first stone

    Telling you that you are incorrect is not casting a stone, Hihn. The man was talking about real stones, not facts or words. For some more Scripture you don't know:

    "For [Apollos] vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah." Acts 18:28

    Because if only the perfect man could tell people they were wrong only Jesus could.

    And here. or all to see -- your shame in an atheist knowing the Holy Bible better than you ... including the "inconvenient" passages you falsely claim do not exists.

    You know nothing of Scripture, Hihn. Those verses do exist (as I have never denied) and they apply, to Ancient Hebrews in Palestine (Deuteronomy 12:1). Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.

    Bless you, Hihn. Your actions only help me prove my point!

    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
    and give you peace.

  • ace_m82||

    YOU just kicked Jesus Christ

    Indeed, every time any one of us sins, it is just like crucifying Christ again (Hebrews 6:6). Telling you the truth of Scripture is not a sin.

    "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

    Yes, indeed, Christ did command that non-life threatening attacks should be met with no response. This is not a command of what justice (repayment) is, but what one should voluntarily do. But your "logic" is once again incomplete because you don't know the Scripture:

    "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" Luke 22:36

    When Jesus left them, they would have to take care of themselves, even to the point of protecting themselves with the sword. So Jesus recognized self-defense.

    I don't know why you keep arguing this, I've shown you this before. But:

    "Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and,'A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.'" 2 Peter 2:22

  • ace_m82||

    ACTUAL CITE. Christian Taliban Bully DENIES he proof

    Hihn, you cannot help yourself, again.

    To be fair, the Scripture does say that certain people, living on God's land as squatters or as guests, should be put to death for certain (very) evil things. The property owner (God, per Leviticus 25:23) has the right to kick them off his land or kill them. Property rights.

    Nowhere does the Scripture say I must kill people who do the same. I'm not an Ancient Hebrew in Palestine.

    Atheist knows Bible better than Sanctimonious One

    The Atheist only knows what he does due to his irrational hatred of God. The Christian knows what he does due to a lifelong study and love for Scripture. The Christian can cite, precisely, where the Atheist is wrong, but in this case, the Atheist will not recognize his error, because that would mean he'd have to change his mind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which version is the lie? Why does an atheist know it and you denied it?

    I didn't say you lied. I said you were wrong. It's right there in plain English.

    You again shame Jesus Christ with another pathetic lie.

    WHICH OF YOUR CONFLICTING VERSIONS IS A LIE?

    First it's not in Scripture to kill all the infidels.
    Then I prove you wrong.
    Then you said it was in the Scripture all along.

    Why are Faux Christians so shamefully dishonest and self-righteous as you shit on the same Christ you claim to speak for ... shaming all of Christianity to the left.

  • ace_m82||

    You again shame Jesus Christ with another pathetic lie.

    When did I say "lie"?

    First it's not in Scripture to kill all the infidels.

    No, it's not in the Scripture to kill all the infidels. It's in there to kill all of certain squatters on God's land. Second, you said the Scripture commands me to kill them, and I am not an Ancient Hebrew in Palestine and the Scripture clearly states:

    "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess--as long as you live in the land." Deuteronomy 12:1

    So you were wrong twice.

    Being wrong is no shame, Hihn, Remaining wrong when you've been shown it is.

    May the Lord bless you and keep you.
    May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
    and give you peace.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I ask again, why do you defend using the state to impose bigotry on homosexuals

    I'm an An-Cap. I don't defend the state doing anything, at all.

    You no longer object to marriage equality?

  • ace_m82||

    (For anyone reading this, I answered this loaded question above.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Reason journalists never mention the 100000 in population increase since midnight of a morning

    Why should they?

    If Jacob were struck by Ebola or Yellow Fever, the government subsidized CDC would suddenly seem a lot less oppressive. DAMN! I forgot how government regulations created so many cures.

  • Drave Robber||

    Re photo: you know who else had German pills?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Dieter, from Shprockets?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Berühre meinen Affen!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Pet mein absmeinke! Touch him! Love him! LEIBE MEIN ABSMEINKE!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    someone has to be wrong here, and for once it isn't Trump

    Hang on, i think we all need to get super whiny about this choice of phrasing.

  • hpearce||

    I only wish the article placed more emphasis on the right to freedom of belief than freedom of religion.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Just perhaps, when mandates bring people's rights into conflict, the government might consider they shouldn't be involved in such endeavors to begin with?

    I know...crazy talk.

  • Mickey Rat||

    But thst would mean the government does not have power, of course its crazy talk.

  • KerryW||

    Except in this case one of them is not even a right that is being infringed. People are not being forbidden from buying contraceptives -- as FreeRad mentioned above, liberty does not include free contraceptives.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Rights aren't rights unless they're "free".

    How can I possibly have the right to use contraception unless you pay for it for me?

    Duh! Do you even prog, bro?

  • DesigNate||

    What manner of witchcraft is this?

  • MarkLastname||

    This is where 'positive rights' gets us. At the back end of a 'positive right' is someone being forced to do something for the supposed owner of the 'right.'

  • Jerryskids||

    I just don't see why all the Atheists and the Jews and the Muslims and the Wiccans and the Buddhists can't all come together like good Christians and agree to work together to comfort the poor and afflicted like Christ taught us. Or, barring that, we can't all agree that who pays the piper calls the tune and all the nonsense about your rights being trampled by the government's rules on handing out free shit is nothing more than whining and bitching about how you don't like the flavor of the Kool-Aid they're handing out and trying to present it as some sort of high-minded moral principle rather than you being a greedy entitled bastard trying to get your own way at the expense of everybody else. You don't like the way the government allows Catholic charities an exemption from handing out free birth control? Fuck you, go get your free birth control somewhere else, because you wanna whine about the moral violation in how the government goes about handing out free shit? To a libertarian? Really?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They fundamentally misconstrue the interests at stake, erroneously equating freedom from coercion with a claim on other people's resources.

    It's not a "right" if you can't force other people to pay for shit you want. /DERP

  • Blue Star||

    For groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic order that runs homes for low-income elderly people, that workaround is unacceptable, because they believe the form they must send to insurers makes them complicit in sin.

    Stating that they object to providing or paying for contraception because it violates their religious beliefs is making them complicit in sin?

    What kind of reason.com libertarian bullshit is this, that accepts that?

    Can you folks simply claim something like 'filling a form itself is tyranny'?

  • MarkLastname||

    So, are you saying you agree they should be forced to fill out a form? Is it fine with you if they make a law forcing you to write an essay once a year explaining why you shouldn't have to buy me condoms, lube, and Viagra?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Blue Star
    Can you folks simply claim something like 'filling a form itself is tyranny'?

    MarkLastName
    So, are you saying you agree they should be forced to fill out a form?

    Are you saying you don't know what "tyranny" means?

  • Davulek||

    Who are you to say what someone with religious beliefs feels makes them complicit in sin? The government should not even be involved in what non-governmental organizations do when providing healthcare. the Libertarian view should be for government to stay out of this and for an individual unsatisfied with the healthcare offered by LSOTP to look elsewhere for employment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Who are you to say what someone with religious beliefs feels makes them complicit in sin?

    THREE illiterates. Scary.

    He was reporting the position of Little Sisters, that completing a form makes them complicit in sin.
    One of the dumbest fucking legal arguments ever. Who are they to claim a special privilege based on religion, under a Constitution that mandates separation?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Stating that they object to providing or paying for contraception because it violates their religious beliefs is making them complicit in sin

    What kind of reason.com libertarian bullshit is this, that accepts that?

    Will you always be so totally illiterate?

    Under your mind control, what is so horrible about reporting the position of "groups such as Little Sisters ..."

    News Flash! The Little Sisters of the Poor are NOT libertarian. Are they allowed to be?

    Can you folks simply claim something like 'filling a form itself is tyranny'?

    You even manage to distort the issue. The Little Sisters don't actually say that. They claim a special exemption from the law, based on religion -- which would clearly violate both the Constitution and Natural Law.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    "Without health coverage of contraception under the ACA, countless women will lose their basic right to prevent pregnancy and plan when they have children."

    Um, do people no longer know how pregnancy occurs?

  • Rhywun||

    Pregnancy happens when the government takes away your birth control, duh.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Um, do people no longer know how pregnancy occurs?

    Pregnancy happens when the government takes away your birth control, duh.

    This one doesn't know!

  • MarkLastname||

    Wow. The Little Sisters of the Poor are Literally raping these poor women. Literally.

  • Domina Elle||

    Gay rights advocates weren't very stratigically smart when they went after a bakery owner for not baking a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. It was petty. It also stoked the powerful religious lobby to work even more aggressively for these actions. Let's make our work harder over a damn wedding cake, shall we?? I think it's notable that when Christians reacted by going to gay owned bakeries and requested cakes to be made that went against the beliefs of those bakeries, the responses ranged from fuck youz to denial of service. The least that the gay owned bakeries could've done was show that they are better and not HYPOCRITES (and they could've used urine to bake the cakes LOL not really cool but the idea makes me laugh).

  • Domina Elle||

    The gov doesn't believe consenting adults have a protected right to have sex. Why then would people have solidly protected reproductive rights?

    Read what the state of CA had to say in its most recent filing in the ESPLERP V GASCON case. The gov also presumes that it can decide which of our relationships are valid. Pretty damn infuriating but who is paying attention?

    Twice the state says that consensual sex is not a protected right. Only MARRIED people have a right to have sex. This is a crucial issue, the constitutionality of sexual freedom must be carved out and that will go far to solidify reproductive rights as well- they are married in terms of privacy rights!

    Read here: http://decriminalizesexwork.com/ESPLERP - State Answering Appellate Brief.pdf

  • Domina Elle||

    http://decriminalizesexwork.com/ESPLERP - State Answering Appellate Brief.pdf

  • Domina Elle||

    Cut and paste the link taking out the spaces for some reason this site separates the link

    Decrimnow.com under briefs

  • Principal Spittle||

    Motion to dismiss is missing/dead-link even from their website.

  • mtrueman||

    "why not treat their purchase of health plans that do not include contraceptives as the signal for insurers to provide that coverage separately? "

    In order to assuage some religious sensibilities, the libertarian suggests we entangle ourselves further still in bureaucratic busywork.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah I know, such bureaucratic busy work it is to have to get cash instead and have to take it all the way down to the pharmacy and hand it over the counter to get birth control. It's so much more direct to just have you employer send the cash to an insurance company which in turn sends (some of) it to the pharmacy, while you... still have to go down to the pharmacy to get it. Yeah, that's, that's so much better.

    I get the impression you actually put effort into making the most idiotic defense of stupid policies. If Reason published an article tomorrow criticizing a policy requiring everyone to shove a banana up their own ass at least three times a day I bet you'd come here and make some smarmy objection that you thought was witty.

  • mtrueman||

    "defense of stupid policies"

    Not defending any policies. Just surprised to see a libertarian advocating more pointless paperwork as a solution to anything.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Not defending any policies. Just surprised to see a libertarian advocating more pointless paperwork as a solution to anything

    You actually said that in public?
    Are you dishonest or confused on the issue? (like the vast majority of comments here)

  • Davulek||

    You can buy oral contraceptives at Walmart for $9 for a 28 day supply with no insurance. If you're too stupid to figure that out you probably shouldn't be engaging in sex. If you're too poor to afford $9 a month then you're too poor to afford a child and probably should stick to masturbation.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online