Supreme Court Unanimous: Free contraception a fundamental Constitutional right

February 9, 2012
By

Why does the left despise this?

Supreme Court Unanimous:  Free contraception a fundamental Constitutional right

Did you see that headline yesterday? Did you see it last week, last month, anytime in the past year, decade?

Fear not your memory. You didn’t see it because it never was.

But it IS the headline and the case the left wing of the Democrat party wants you to believe has already been codified into settled law.

While the recent decision by HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius mandating that any and all health plans under Obamacare offer certain contraceptive services to all without even a co-pay is being framed by the White House and the left as a “women’s health and equality” issue, in reality it is about anything BUT health or equality.

Google “birth control pill and women’s health” and you get over 32 million results and plenty of references to “clotting”, “cancer”, “side effects” and on and on that don’t fit very well under the definition of positive “health”. Quite frankly, there are literally millions of references to the pill’s detrimental effects on a woman’s “health”.

While one can argue the risks outweigh the benefits, one cannot deny the risks are not there any more than one can deny that the decision to take or use such contraception is a personal choice that must be made by every woman on an individual level.

If a government bureaucrat suddenly mandated that EVERY woman in America immediately being taking birth control pills as a “public health” issue there would be an outrage across the land. That is a “personal choice” not for government to intrude upon. (The Corner agrees with that by the way.)

Yet if that same government bureaucrat mandates that EVERY religious organization’s health plan under the new “Obamacare” rules must provide those same pills without even a co-pay to all who desire, you hear not a peep from that same “personal choice” crowd. (The Corner finds that a bit incongruous by the way.)

Google “Supreme Court religious freedom” and you get close to 4 million results discussing various aspects of such including the lead in below from the ChicagoTribune editorial following the Court’s 9 to nothing, unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC when it unequivocally upheld the founding principle of religious freedom:

In a case involving a teacher fired by an Evangelical Lutheran school in Michigan, President Obama’s Justice Department climbed way out on a limb in arguing that the teacher could sue for the loss of her job. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court took a sharp saw to that branch.

It’s not every day that you find this court reaching a unanimous verdict, with liberals and conservatives in agreement. It’s not every day that the notably liberal Justice Elena Kagan signs onto an opinion by the famously conservative Samuel Alito. But that’s what happened this time.

And the editorial closes:

In this decision, the court struck a crucial blow for the rights of conscience. If the First Amendment means anything, it means religious institutions must be allowed to decide whom they entrust with propagating the word of God. In that sacred realm, the only place for government is out of the way.

The full decision can be read here and it should be read by each and every American.

Critics on the left claim that the Hosanna-Tabor decision is not a valid parallel to the HHS mandate issued by Sebelius because Sebelius is merely setting public health policy and therefore the religious freedom doctrine does not apply.

Yet less than a month ago, a full and undivided Supreme Court held:

Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

The Corner proposes that the Court could and would provide a very similar decision should this latest Obama power-grab appear before them:

Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, provide and pay for a personal benefit that directly contradicts church doctrine, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment personal health care decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs which, if any, contraceptive services can be offered without violating its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister mandate, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments which contraception benefits it makes available through its health plans. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful mandate an elective benefit in direct violation of church doctrine also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

The left argues that the religious freedom clause does not apply in the Sebelius case because it involves so called “ancillaries” and not the “church” itself. (Hospitals, universities, charities etc.) Yet the Hosanna-Tabor case directly negates the “ancillary” argument as the Court clearly included the school as falling under the church’s religious freedom protection found in the Constitution. (A school by the way that is exactly the type of institution that would be forced to go against it’s religious beliefs under the Obama doctrine of “contraception free and contraception for all”.)

Federal bureaucrats arbitrarily imposing their values and beliefs upon everyone, with absolutely no regard to the Constitutional protection of religious freedom, is exactly what was warned about prior to the passing of the aberration otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act.

That warning has now been proven true.

The question before each and every citizen today is does it stand?

Does this nation now truly embrace the doctrine that the left’s newly invented “right” to free and unfettered access to birth control pills trumps the First Amendment and the founding principle of religious freedom?

Will the millions of those bitter “clingers to their guns and religion” now just bow at the altar of Obamacare or will those “truths we hold to be self-evident” prevail?

The Corner officially bets $10,000 Romney dollars that those truths prevail.

This decision has nothing to do with “freeedom of choice” or “women’s health”. Rahter it has everything to do with a political minority using the heavy hand of government bureaucracy to force its will upon the majority.

It is immoral, it is un-Constitutional, and it will not stand.

 

Next Up:

Examples of how our local lefties (yes, our very own village idiot, Mr. DwainBwain himself, is front and center) are treating the issue and the level to which they will attack any who dare question the dogma of the Socialist States of Amerika. (If you like Alinsky and his model of ignore the facts and just attack, attack, attack, you’re gonna love what’s going on “over there”.)

Tags: , , , ,

3 Responses to Supreme Court Unanimous: Free contraception a fundamental Constitutional right

  1. A Nonny Moose on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Geoff, I’m glad to see you tackling this. Great info regarding the Supreme Court decisions and precedents!

    This whole thing is yet another example of how to the left, it doesn’t matter what you think or believe as an individual. You must, must obey the government! What they want is far more important than what you think is appropriate for yourself, especially when it’s just stupid old religion and conscience that is causing you to be so selfish. Although, let’s be truly honest here. This cannot be framed as government against religion. This is religion versus religion. This is the left’s version of the Crusades, as government IS their religion. Perhaps soon the dome on the Capitol will be replaced with a giant Golden Calf. All faith must be placed in government, the government must be seen as all-powerful and omnipotent, the government must never be contradicted or blasphemed. If that petty little so-called religion you practice doesn’t see things exactly the way theirs does, why then, yours is wrong, of course, and must be forcibly brought in line. We saw something similar just a short time earlier, when the well-respected Susan G Koman Foundation was suddenly the very essence of evil on earth, because they were no longer going to give a relatively paltry $600,000 to Planned Parenthood (a whopping .01% – that’s one-one hundredth of a percentage point — of their total budget). Komen was great… until they dared to cross the groupthink that says abortions are far, far more important than silly old breast cancer. Or in other words, if it’s a choice — even a false choice based on a tiny little sum of money — between finding a cure for a deadly disease or killing babies left and right, the apostates who think diseases are important must be punished! Heck, today’s paper had another, albeit Johnny-Come-Lately editorial telling us how useless Komen really is. Gotta land that last punch, that last gob of spit on the corpse so you can say you participated and keep your leftist bona fides, you know. In the same manner, religions are at least marginally tolerable, so long as they are seen and not heard, and never, ever hold an opinion that clashes with what the far left wants. Remember, the left prides itself on how “tolerant” they are. And it’s true, they’ll tolerate anything… so long as they already agree with it. Dissent? Thinking for yourself? Intolerable.

    Next up? We’re seeing HSA monitoring the internet for anything that might make them or the administration look bad. At what point does Zombie Orwell reanimate, just to come back and say “I told you so! My timing may have been off, but I told you so!”?

    • Geoff Caldwell on February 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm

      What you write above, as usual, nails the issue as it exists. I do however find hope in the recent 9 – 0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor. Anytime you get even the liberals agreeing the Obama administration over-reached is a good time indeed.

  2. Geoff Caldwell on February 11, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Right now he’s only worried about getting re-elected and the internal polling is showing him slipping severely with the suburban women that got him elected. Hence making this a women’s “rights” issue this year, even thought SCOTUS may very well strike down the entire law and make it all moot. Obama will still be able to show he “fought” for them. Cynical and hypocritical indeed but this is Obama and the White House is now being run from Chicago so it comes as no surprise.

Calendar

October 2021
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Search