Excellent News!

Court tells God King he can’t hold a gun to the head of a Catholic business, frog march them into somebody’s bedroom, and make them pay for their contraception.

Dear confused paladins of sexual libertinism: Make up your minds.  You want us Catholics out of the privacy of your bedroom?  Fine by me.  I don’t want to send the police into your bedroom to inspect whatever it is you are doing with your groin.  So you stop having the police frog march me into you bedroom to pay for whatever it is you are doing with your groin.  Not my problem.

Let’s have many more courts bring this absurd and tyrannical bit of law down in a heap of smoking rubble.

  • http://canfrancisbringmeback.wordpress.com/ ganganelli

    Another blow for liberty and freedom! Hemophiliacs beware though; you might want to see if your employer is a Jehovah Witness because they won’t want to pay for insurance that covers your blood transfusions(on religious grounds, of course)

    And hey, maybe Christian Scientist owners can get out of paying for any healthcare at all seeing as they don’t believe in that whole going to the doctor thing when you’re sick.

    • Stu

      Oh, please.

      Aside from the fact that there is ample choice in the market to get care (or employment for that matter) there is a big difference between actual medical care which aims to fix what is wrong with someone and elective actions which aim to stifle what is properly working in someone.

      Contraception is not medicine.

    • Colin Gormley

      Cuz God forbid that employers should have rights like we do. When they become employers they become little more than cash dispensers.

      • Chesire11

        If this were a publicly traded corporation, the religious objection would be moot, as equity changes hands constantly, and no individual shareholder can be held morally culpable for every act of the corporation. When it is a privately held business, however, it is an extension of the owners. That is what makes the HHS mandate so problematic in this instance.

    • chezami

      Dunno if you are Catholic, but you clearly are a much of a Kool Aid drinker for Obama as any right wing dunce who tried to convince himself that Romney was prolife. Far more important to you than the teaching of the Church is Tribal Loyalty to the One. I’m tired of stupid Catholics who elevate party above the teaching of the Church. Bye.

    • Chesire11

      Jehovah Witnesses believe that it is sinful for them to receive blood transfusions because it would violate their own religious beliefs, they do not believe that it is intrinsically evil for others to receive blood transfusions, so the individual and employer mandates would not raise free exercise objections.

      Also, Christian Scientists do not have religious objection to traditional healthcare. Their preference is to seek healing first through God, but are open to modern medical care.

      • http://ontheotherfoot.blogspot.com/ Joel

        Nevertheless, if Jehovah’s Witnesses did believe it was intrinsically evil to receive blood transfusions (as I had thought they did), it would be their absolute right to refuse to participate by paying for them. I hope Catholics would stand up for the JWs’ rights as vigorously as for our own.

        • Chesire11

          I agree.

    • Kristen inDallas

      Guess you failed to read the bit in the majority opinion about how the government didn’t even try to make a reasonable case that contraceptives are actually “good” for public “health”

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      I like that this argument is being made solely on principle with no concession to the fact that reality is not at all ideal. As though the fact that the United States is rich and powerful enough to deal with a few kooks like JWs or Christian Scientists in the system, means nothing. As though people became JWs or Christian Scientists in order to game the healthcare system. It’s like someone insisting that Amish men register for the draft and fight in a war because it’s just not fair otherwise.

  • JM1001

    Good news, of course. But it ain’t over yet. Now on to the Supreme Court.

  • Lauren Enriquez

    That’s what I’ve been saying! If you want me out of your reproductive organs, then don’t make me pay for whatever is going on in there!

  • Chesire11

    Amen!

  • Comraderie

    Excellent news indeed, the thing that struck me and is perhaps most exciting is the language (procreative practices) found in Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s ruling:

    “it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right — whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy — can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

    But I guess this also means we’ll never see Judge Janice Rogers Brown appointed to the Supreme Court.

  • bob

    I’d take that deal in a minute, Mark. But the Christian Right wouldn’t. No way no how.

    • Noah Doyle

      What are you talking about?

    • Patrick Button

      Yeah, what are you talking about?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X