Well done, Justice Sotomayor!

for blocking the Obama Administration’s tyrannical HHS mandate for the Little Sisters of the Poor. Now just do it permanently and for everybody with a conscience objection to being forced to pay for somebody else’s contraception and abortion and we’ll be good.

  • kirthigdon

    Here’s hoping that Justice Sotomayor will continue on this good path. I’m actually fairly optimistic about that and not too surprised at her decision. As an appellate judge, she made a decision against Planned Parenthood. She is the only justice to my knowledge to make a pro-life ruling prior to appointment to the Supremes. This was no secret at the time of her appointment (I read about it in LA Times on line), but little or nothing was made of it. I think there was a subconscious conspiracy of silence. Pro-life Republicans did not wish to admit the possibility that BHO would make a pro-life appointment and the usual pro-abort crowd (PP, feminists, etc.) were afraid of being accused of racism if they objected to the appointment of the first Hispanic woman to the High Court.
    Kirt Higdon

  • Andrew Simons

    I don’t think we can glean much from the fact that it was J. Sotomayor who issued the decision; she’s the junior Justice and was probably the only one working on New Year’s Eve. But, it’s obvious the Court is interested in taking a look at the mandate in light of the ACA’s exemptions and accommodations, as well as the ACA’s relationship to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I suspect she was just the messenger.

    • jaybird1951

      I believe she was the one because the Rocky Mountain states are part of the region assigned to her, and the Little Sisters are located in CO.

  • Eve Fisher

    Ah, yes – the sacred conscience. I’d go along with it, if conscience objections were only private, but they’re not: the result seems so often to be that MY conscience objection must be imposed on everyone around me (never vice versa, I notice, because then it’s persecution), whether they share their religious views or not, and if they have no alternative but to put up with whatever decisions MY conscience objections enforce in their lives (such as the fact that, say, we’re the only employer around and/or jobs are scarce on the ground), tough, because MY conscience objections trump anyone else’s.

    Now, before everyone goes all atwitter about what I’ve just said (and I’ll agree, people can buy their own birth control, although I still think it’s a hoot that Viagra is covered by insurance and no one’s raising conscience issues about that), think about this: Savit Halappanavar in Ireland died because, although a Hindu, she was in a Irish Catholic hospital (and there were no others), and although her dying fetus was killing her they could/would do nothing about it because the Bishops decreed: “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted.” Or, as an American priest put it, “The unborn child can never be thought of as a pathology or an illness. That is, the child is not that which threatens the life of the mother, rather it is the pathology or illness (cancer, premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, preeclampsia, etc.) which threatens the mother’s life.” So we have bishops making medical decisions that have led directly to deaths. Some people would say it was better for Savit Halappanavar to die rather than to violate someone’s conscience. I disagree. I say it tells us exactly how dangerous conscience, unregulated by charity, can be.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X