As expected, the Christian right is beside themselves with joy over the Hobby Lobby ruling. While I’m sure they would have preferred a much broader ruling, they got the result they wanted and some of them are saying some really dumb things about it. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that one of them is Erick Erickson.
My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2014
Really, Erick? So by your reasoning, a company could also refuse to cover, say, treatment of STDs or anti-retroviral drugs for those with HIV and that would be just fine, right? For that matter, it could refuse prenatal treatment and delivery of babies, since that is also a consequence of sex. How very “pro-life” of you. Amanda Marcotte rips him a new one for this:
Since even monogamous couples—even very long-married monogamous couples—use contraception, it’s telling that someone like Erickson is coupling contraception use with wanton and out of control sexuality. If you’re 40 years old and you have sex with your spouse of 15 years after you put the kids to bed, you are a crazed out of control slut who needs some “consequences” to force you to cut it out, I guess. I don’t know if guys like Erickson are just massive hypocrites or if their sex lives really are so pathetic that even a quickie between long-married spouses before the late show makes him writhe with bitter jealousy, but man, he has to know that the latter is what people are assuming, right? Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with having wanton sex with multiple partners, but it’s fascinating that even long-married couples who want to have sex with each other are on his shit list of bad, oversexed people.
Ouch. Harsh, but fair. The incredibly stupid Steve Deace:
Yeah, not a legal scholar, this guy. Religious non-profits already have a religious exemption. In fact, the ruling in Hobby Lobby explicitly says that the government could simply apply that exemption to for-profit companies, which would mean that if they object to including contraception in their group insurance policies, the insurance companies would have to provide a free rider to each employee that covers it. What this ruling really signals is that all those challenges to having to comply with the very simple requirements to get such an exemption are going to lose.
Can the federal government mandate they use their proceeds for the killing of children? Since we know the Social Reconstructionists on the Left won’t stop pressing this question, rest assured we will find out. However, this opinion is also likely a preview of further defeats for the Obama Regime still to come. There are several non-profit challenges to the Obamacare killing mandate making their way through the courts, including the highly-publicized one involving the Little Sisters of the Poor. If SCOTUS has already said a for-profit company like Hobby Lobby has a religious exemption, it’s hard to see how it’s possible religious non-profits don’t as well.
If we play our cards right, and God grants us a favor, we can use this as a momentum changer. That’s mainly thanks to the Green family, who just became the Rosa Parks of the religious liberty fight. Just as her refusal to comply with an unjust edict on a bus one day blew the lid off the civil rights movement, perhaps the Greens’ refusal to comply with Obamacare’s unjust edict can accomplish the same for a similarly worthy cause.
That worthy cause being…making sure people don’t have access to contraception, thus increasing the number of abortions. So very “pro-life.”
And then the even dumber Bryan Fischer:
Roberts joined majority opinion today. His way of admitting that he blew it when he upheld ObamaCare to begin with.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 30, 2014
Uh, no Bryan. The two cases have almost nothing to do with one another. The Roberts ruling in the case two years ago was about the scope of Congress’ ability to regulate interstate commerce and to tax. This case is about interpreting a specific statute. This is what happens when people who know absolutely nothing about constitutional law spout off about it, they make fools of themselves.