3 Very Wrong Things Said About the Hobby Lobby Case

Two sides met today in a great battle at the Supreme Court to decide whether for profit businesses have the right to decide whether or not birth control should be a mandatory part of every company’s insurance plan. At least, that’s what most of the country believes that the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases are about. Today, however, some people were apparently watching some very different oral arguments.

Here are three things that apparently are being considered in the Hobby Lobby lawsuit that the rest of us missed the memo about:

Euthanasia: Did you know that the Affordable Care Act now mandates employers provide birth control, abortions and euthanasia? Neither did I. Luckily, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano figured it out in time to tell the rest of us. According to Salon, Napolitano told Fox News host Megyn Kelly, “As everybody knows, the Affordable Care Act requires anybody that employs 50 or more people to provide healthcare for them that includes contraceptive services. Contraceptive services means contraception, euthanasia and abortion.”

Contraception, the last time I — and most medical professionals — checked, means to “stop conception.” I could be wrong, but once you are to the point where euthanasia is an option, you are probably long, long past preventing conception.

Anti-life drugs: Of course, euthanasia is an honest mistake once you start following the logic of Americans United for Life, who has declared any form of contraception to be “anti-life” because it stops a life from being created. Which, yes, that’s the whole point of pregnancy prevention. But if you fall for that, you are falling for the “con” of contraception, according to Charmaine Yoest. “What could not be won at the ballot box is attempted in the big Con, mislabeling life-ending drugs as ‘contraception,’ providing new income streams for an industry that deals in destruction and confusing the debate by conflating healthcare with anti-life policies.” She also argues that pregnancy begins far before you see a big + sign on a pregnancy test, which in essence makes every ovulating person potentially pregnant from the moment ovulation begins to the beginning of a period, if we aren’t allowed to assume a negative pregnancy test means not pregnant anymore.

If you are still confused as to what does and doesn’t count as “life ending” drugs in AUL’s view, this tweet should clear things up for you.

This is an abortion case.“ It’s not. This case is about preventing pregnancy, either through birth control pills, emergency contraception, long term reversible contraceptives like IUDs, or even sterilizations, all of which have significant out of pocket costs involved, even if they save insurance companies (and employers) more over the long term by not paying for maternity costs, health costs for subsequent children, maternity and paternity leave and sick time. Unfortunately, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote on whether or not the companies have the right to opt out of the mandate due to “deeply held religious beliefs” seems to be under the impression that this could open up a door to funding abortions. “[T]hen he made a statement that will likely doom the government’s case,” writes Ian Millhiser at Think Progress. “‘Your reasoning would permit’ Congress to force corporations to pay for abortions….” Millhiser concludes, “Kennedy did something different, he did not weigh in on the question of whether non-abortions can count as abortion — indeed, he seemed to understand the difference between birth control and abortion. Nevertheless, he looked at the government’s requirement to provide birth control coverage and envisioned a future law compelling Hobby Lobby to pay for actual abortions…”

In other words, Hobby Lobby and their religious freedom followers didn’t have to make the argument that they believe birth control is an abortion, because Kennedy was willing to jump right to the end and say “if they have to ‘pay’ for coverage that includes birth control, why not abortion as well?”

So what are the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases about, if not abortion, euthanasia, or the “anti-life” con? To put it simply, it is about a group of companies sought out by a legal team to find another way to try to pull apart as many pieces of the Affordable Care Act as possible. That the same groups championing “religious freedom” of corporations were the ones fighting against the implementing of Obamacare to begin with isn’t an accident.

It’s not about corporations having consciences. It’s about still trying to undermine the effectiveness of health care reform by trying to find opportunities to get out of providing coverage. So the next time they say “birth control isn’t health care,” remember they don’t want affordable quality health care coverage at all.

Photo credit: Wikimedia commons


Magdalena J.
Alice L.2 years ago

Thanks for sharing!

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown2 years ago

Darryll G. just sent me a personal email saying "NO, the war on religious principles continues"

No Darryll, it is the religious THUGS like you that are trying to force their religious views upon others, passing laws attacking the reproductive rights of women.

Also, if you have anything to say to me in the future, say it in the forum, I do not wish to receive personal emails from you.

Kevin Brown
Kevin Brown2 years ago

And the Republican war on women continues....

Michael T.
Michael T.2 years ago

@Carole writes:
“Actually I believe I heard a whole herd of squeals somewhere near a cliff. LOL.” makes it easier to bring home the bacon.”

Excellent Comment.

“I think Paul was a misogynist. If mammary serves, he was against marriage as well. “

Yes, he was a misogynist. And more, he had some kind of health issue which sounded like epileptic seizures.

“if you were me you'd be a woman. :D”

LOL, and so much more…

Carole L.
Carole L.2 years ago

Micheal T
“Actually I believe I heard a whole herd of squeals somewhere near a cliff. LOL.”

makes it easier to bring home the bacon.
I think Paul was a misogynist. If mammary serves, he was against marriage as well.

“I would highly recommend reading Resa Azlan’s Zealot if I were you to put some of this into a perspective.”

if you were me you'd be a woman. :D I’ll check out the book.

Lloyd H
“You know that for al of their Piety Pimping and Holier Than Thou pig squealing The Greens/Hobby Lobby have absolutely no problem profiting from the manufacture of Contraceptives.”

wouldn't it be fun to launch a new kind of boycott in that pro-choice folks go to HL stores walk around for a bit. Then inform the Manager that we cannot in good conscious shop there anymore because they buy and sell products made in countries that have mandatory abortion. and that is against our 'sensible' “family values”.

Michael T.
Michael T.2 years ago

Thanks Lloyd for your excellent efforts in doing the kind of research that had to take.

I hadn't thought of checking into it, and wouldn't have know how or where to begin doing such research.

Cheers and a green star for your efforts.

Lloyd H.
Lloyd H.2 years ago

You know that for al of their Piety Pimping and Holier Than Thou pig squealing The Greens/Hobby Lobby have absolutely no problem profiting from the manufacture of Contraceptives. Their Retirement 401K plan has $73 Million invested in the makers od IUDs, Emergency Contraceptives and Abortificants, IUDs: ParaGard, Skyla, Mirena, Actavis; Emergency Contraceptives: Plan B, the Generic Plan B, Ella; Abortificants: Cylotex, Prostin E2, Prostodin, Cerviprime, Parlocin, Cervidil.
And since there are several Companies that specialize in Christian Screening 401K investments to avoid moral conflicts the Greens are lying hypocrites.

Michael T.
Michael T.2 years ago

It is apparent that many of us know far more about their book, it’s history, its apologists, and their efforts than many of the most strident buy-bull thumpers do who show up here do.

Michael T.
Michael T.2 years ago

I know Carole, LOL,

I was playing on our combined statements to pursue the issue even further.

I was very glad to hear someone else talk about that plural god thing and how perfect a “word of god” thing the bible really isn’t/can’t be. It doesn’t matter whether it is the Old Testacle or the New Testacle.

The variations in the story of their Save-your among the synoptic and myopic, presbyopic, mon-opic Gosh-spells are almost too numerous to count. And the completely fabricated and refashioned Save-your stuff by Paul the Hallucinogenic is hilarious.

Paul had to basically hide from and compete with James, the purported brother of the Save-your, and Peter, that is after Pater gave him the benefit of the doubt for a time until he figured out Paul was definitely dancing to a different drummer than they were.

Then the apologists that followed through the next 2 millennia laboring to try and sew together the Old Testacle & New Testacle together into some kind of workable whole is amusing. And it is also amusing, as you pointed out how each divergent version claims they are the one true version.

Actually I believe I heard a whole herd of squeals somewhere near a cliff. LOL.

I would highly recommend reading Resa Azlan’s Zealot if I were you to put some of this into a perspective.

Carole L.
Carole L.2 years ago

Michael T
“and I quote you: "and god said, let 'us' make man in 'our' image, after 'our' likeness...” so one 'might' deduce there is more than one god."

LOL, not only deduce but it actually is plural.”

I was attempting a pinch of diplomacy for the blind. :)

“So how did the perfect god(s), write perfect bibles especially the Torah where the creation stories vary so much from each other (among many contradictions)?”

quite true. I personally initially turned away from the church because of the nature of the followers. and I attended various denominations in my search for "Truth" of god as religious folks "understand" it to be. I do see the agreements in the various faiths IE creation, messiah, the return, etc. other than that I really didn't see much difference in any of their claims. and they all claimed to be the "One True Faith" worshipping the "One True God" and every one else was wrong. It was later throughout the years that I 'saw' the contradictions in their “sacred” book.

Did I just hear a swine squeal. oh look, it appears to be racing toward a cliff with a very long drop-off. good thing I left my pearls in the pouch.