11 votes

Despite Liberal Outrage, Supreme Court Gets It Right With Hobby Lobby Ruling

Let me first say that I am 100% for the use of contraception and also for the individual rights of women to do what they choose with their bodies. I put that right at the start because today’s “Hobby Lobby” ruling is not about the individual rights of women in any way. Despite the liberal outrage and the invented angle of attack that caters to that portion of the population, using women’s rights as a lever against the stance of the owners of corporations who object to Obamacare’s mandate that birth control be included in every health benefit package, women’s rights have nothing to do with the issue. This is solely about the government extending it’s power over what a privately held company provides to its employees as benefit, and violating the religious beliefs of ownership in the process.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations with strongly held religious beliefs could opt-out of providing contraception as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

“We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]— or, for that matter, ACA–would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

Continue to Full Article

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I dare to contradict

Family planning decisions such as birth control, care for elders should be contained within the family and THE family alone should have the ultimate power on how, when and what to do for the interests of their family.

In case there is a dysfunctional family, it should be obligation of the community and extended family to counsel, intervene and make decision for them.

These two decision making nods should be in position to address more than 95% of the issues.

In the extremelyrare cases where two layers cannot help there should be a third layer such as a municipality local laws that would, then, with the use of local taxation funds would help people in family planning decisions. Again, these should be very rare instances where local goverment is intervening.

Selective approval of Supreme Court legitimizes other decisions: just think about it... 9 old and rich lawyers decide what is right and wrong for more than 300 million. In my view SC does not represent our country even though each and every of the SC lawyers are smart individually.

Engage in Secure Exchange

An alternate take

While I'm generally in agreement with McWilly here, I offer an alternate take on the verdict.


*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*