The Rude Pundit on the Consequences of the Hobby Lobby Decision

Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit

There are lots of things that have bugged me about the Supreme Court and some of their decisions over the last few years. One of the biggest bones of contention for me, is that the court doesn't seem to plan for "unintended consequences." Or intended consequences. Or any consequences. They often either don't seem to have considered what the decision before them could lead to, or don't care.

Remember when Justice Samuel Alito shot back "Not true," when President Obama mentioned possible consequences of the Citizens United ruling, during the State of the Union Address? Turns out, Obama was right on the money. That tells me, Alito didn't ponder where CU could lead, or didn't believe it would happen. Later, when SCOTUS took a knife to the Voting Rights Act, they indicated that racism was over, and that the part they carved out was unnecessary. Minutes later, affected states began enacting previously prohibited voting restrictions. Wrong again, SCOTUS.

Now, we've got a) corporate personhood, b) corporations with religious beliefs, c) beliefs that are not contingent on reality or science, d) laws that can be disregarded by corporations with "sincerely held beliefs" that are in conflict with those laws, e) corporations having religious beliefs that trump the employees' religious beliefs, and f) untold future claims of possibly presently uninvented religions, with unknown beliefs. And of course, there is the underlying disrespect for women that seems to hang over anything politically conservative. It's a freakin' mess.

But I've gone on too long here. I don't have the talent of Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit, who has put pixels to screen on this subject, with far more zest than I can give it. So read on. I'll run a link to Part II when it goes live.

[Excerpt]

Yes, Everything Is Worse Than It Seems (Part 1: Hobby Lobby, Science, and You)

. . .Think about how that willful disbelief in science can apply. If Cargill, a closely-held corporation, says that its church doesn't believe that climate change is human-made, does that mean it can ignore pollution mandate? Can Chick-fil-A claim that its owners' religion says that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not genetic trait so, fuck you, queers, go home? Just think of all the laws you can toss out if you have a religious belief that is total bullshit, but sincerely held. Koch Industries was just told, "Go nuts, motherfuckers. Have blood orgies to your mad gods and sacrifice virgins to the oil demons, if that's what you believe." Walmart can finally make lard a sacrament. . .

Read more at: The Rude Pundit

Guy Sings Justice Ginsburg's Hobby Lobby Dissent

There are always high profile Supreme Court cases that one side or the other will be very disappointed about. But the Hobby Lobby case still leaves me very confused. As I said earlier, contraception and abortion aren't my issues. But the Pandora's Box that has been opened by allowing religious exemptions to laws? The pitfalls just seem so obvious. The legal reasoning seems so flimsy. I feel confident enough to predict: this case will lead to many and varied cases of companies trying to duck laws they don't like, bogus religions seeing what they can get away with, and even more bizarre claims of corporate personhood. But hey, it's not all doom and gloom, right? There are even ways to make the best of it. Like this guy.
 

Rachel Maddow: Previous SCOTUS Religion Cases Went Much Differently

A history lesson you should watch, so you can realize just how radical Monday's Hobby Lobby decision really was. If you don't have time for both videos, it's the second one that relates to the story below, the first is on the same subject.

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow: Christian segregationists would support Hobby Lobby ruling



Segregationists like Maurice Bessinger, who used religion to justify his beliefs, would be stunned and possibly pleased by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding workers’ access to reproductive health measures, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said, “His belief in slavery and segregation as divinely ordained? That was certainly sincerely held,” Maddow said. “Certainly it was based in religion. But in his case, that was not enough to deprive people of their right to protections and rights that they were afforded under law. Now though, the court today said religion is all you need. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Supreme Court Inexplicably Decides For Hobby Lobby

I'm a gay man, if you didn't know, and as such have very little interest in the subject of abortion, or birth control. So, the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood case doesn't affect me directly. But as an atheist, I'm an ardent supporter of the separation of church and state (as all fans of the Constitution should be, by the way). And so, when SCOTUS does anything that bends over for religion, I've immediately got my hackles up.

Let's start with the direct problems with the case:

- It gives corporations "religious rights," furthering the fiction that corporations are people.
- It allows employers' religious beliefs to trump employees' religious beliefs.
- As such, the employer's beliefs are protected, while the employees' are disregarded.
- It allows an employers' beliefs about something (in this case that these particular birth control methods cause abortion, when in fact they don't) to be respected, regardless of how wrong it is.
- It magnifies something that was settled decades ago--birth control--into a "hot button" issue.
- Though it takes strained pains not to, it opens the door to countless other corporate religious exemptions to other laws.
- SCOTUS treats the religions of the companies involved in this case--mainstream Christianity--as a valid, acceptable religion to earn an exception to the ObamaCare law. But it dismisses other religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Christian Scientists), and gives no clear reasoning as to what would qualify one over the other.

This is one of those cases that is bound to make one side happy, and the other unhappy. But it also goes further, by tarnishing the already dingy reputation of the court, by not having much in the way of legal reasoning at all. Hobby Lobby is not a person. It is not a church. It is not a doctor or in the medical profession. It is a craft store. And yet, they put themselves in the position of dictating their religious beliefs about a medical decision to their employees, regardless of the employee's beliefs, or lack of them.

I want to ask supporters of this decision some simple questions: do you honestly think that it will end here, with a "Christian" corporation, on the issue of birth control only? Did you consider that this law will eventually apply to other religions, from Mormons to Hindus to Islam? Did you consider that a corporation could devise a whole new religion, and make any sort of "sincerely held beliefs" to get out of other laws? This was Pandora's Box. It's open now.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court exempts Hobby Lobby from Obamacare contraception mandate

 

Attempting to expand religious expression protections to small business owners without significantly disrupting the rules that govern for-profit corporations, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Obama administration must exempt closely-held firms like Hobby Lobby from a rule requiring large companies to help pay for their employees' birth control. . .

Read more at: CBS News

Debunktion Junction: Rachel Maddow Debunks Cardinal Dolan and More

An entertaining segment that shows Cardinal Timothy Dolan to be decidedly uninformed on the subject of contraception. Which really isn't too surprising when you think about it, but you know, they've got him opining on a news show, so. . . you know. . . maybe they shouldn't do that.
 

Creepy Mike Huckabee's Sexism and. . .Creepiness

"And then Uncle Sugar touches you in your special place. . ."
Image from source, Raw Story

Ugh. You'd have thought prominent conservatives would have learned their lessons by now, when it comes to women. Instead, they keep saying very, very, very stupid things about rape, abortion, sex, sex parts, contraception, and on and on. They seem to think they're absolute experts on that whole lady business while continuing to prove that they a) don't really seem to know much about it, and b) have no clue how to talk about it without being extremely offensive. And yet, they keep doing it!

But let me say, even though what Huckabee says is indeed racist, and I understand that the following phrase is part of his regular schtick, this man saying "Uncle Sugar," is like the creepiest thing ever.

[Excerpt]

Huckabee: Dems say women ‘can’t control their libido’ without birth control from ‘Uncle Sugar’
 
Mike Huckabee says Democrats make women feel helpless to control their libido by offering government-sponsored birth control. The onetime presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor told the Republican National Committee during a speech Thursday that they can’t allow liberals to frame the debate any longer. “I think it’s time Republicans no longer accept listening to the Democrats talk about a ‘war on women,’” Huckabee said. “Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Abortion Boogaloo Part Eighty-Seven: Scott Walker Anti-Abortion Law Thwarted

Governer Scott Wanker Walker, Image from source, DailyKos

I always feel the need to point out, when I post one of these stories, that abortion has never been one of my issues. It still isn't, really, except that I'm forced into a position by the odiousness of the GOP on the issue. Most of the support they get for these laws hinges upon the "twenty weeks/fetal pain" part of them. They've convinced a lot of fence-sitters that a) a fetus is viable and can feel pain at 20 weeks, something that is scientifically dubious and, b) that the main and/or only thing they're after is to stop "late term abortions." You might even add c) convincing voters that 20 weeks is late term, that it's common, and that it's used frivolously as birth control.

But there is in fact a whole lot more in play than just the 20 weeks rule. If that was all there was to it (and if there were exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother), the outcry wouldn't be nearly so loud. What they're really trying to do--I'm convinced--is spur a lawsuit that eventually gets before the Supreme Court, in an effort to undo Roe v. Wade. Republican governors and legislatures are trying to outdo each other in that effort, and seemingly are also trying to see who can do it in the most dickish way. Who knew there were tea party bonus points for dickishness? Oh, who am I kidding, I knew.

The funny thing is how transparent it all is. Passing arbitrary "trap" laws that make it impossible to operate clinics legally, and then sometimes creating catch-22 counter-laws that make a legal paradox that would give any lawyer a headache. They end up shutting down health clinics that provide much more than just abortion, sometimes the only resource poor women have for health care. They unwittingly (or purposefully) outlaw many forms of birth control and possibly in vitro fertilization, because of the verbiage they use defining (or redefining) pregnancy, fertilization, implantation, etc. And they do it in the most underhanded, skeevy ways possible, often right before live television cameras.

So, it's always nice to see them get shut down, or stalled. I'm hoping that some loud voices can cut through all of the political theater, to clearly show the kinds of consequences all of these laws could lead to.

[Excerpt]

Breaking: Judge Blocks Wisconsin Anti-Abortion Law

Yeah!  The 9 day from introduction to legislative passage, signed secretly into law during a holiday weekend by cowardly Governor Scott Walker has been partially blocked from implementation for 10 days by a judge. . .

Read more at: DailyKos

Michigan Bill Would Allow Refusal of Medical Treatment for Religious Reasons

Image from source, Addicting Info

I know that atheists, agnostics and other non-religious people get a bad rap for knocking religion, and sometimes making a spectacle of themselves. This is because it is so rare that they do it. Religious people have a hard time conceiving of a life without religion. So much so, that they will insist that atheism is itself a religion, despite it's very definition meaning "without religion." Many, if not most religious people see much of life through a religious lens. They think that people can't be moral without God (or at least, their idea of God). They think that among every religion that exists or has existed, theirs is the correct one. And though they'll find other religions to be false and frankly kind of weird, they see no weirdness in their own wacky religion (and they're all wacky from outside them, sports fans).

But you know what, that's cool. As an atheist, I really don't care if you believe in talking snakes, a somehow populated Land of Nod, that all of the animals on earth arrived in pairs in the Middle East in time for the great flood, or that a virgin got pregnant by a disembodied deity. But you can't make the rules for others who don't share (or even do share) your faith. You can't write laws based on your beliefs, when those laws affect the general public. If you are a doctor or a pharmacist or other healthcare provider, you don't get to withhold treatment to people based on your faith. If you're treating a patient, it's not about you!

This should be clear, but suddenly there is a mass confusion around "religious freedom" in this country. Suddenly a pharmacy is a church? An insurance company is a church? You've got florists, bakers, photographers and inns refusing to serve gay couples, because it violates their faith. . .what? How? Do they interview all of their customers to make sure their lives match up with the business owner's beliefs? It's bonkers. I've actually seen the argument made by The National Organization for Marriage (NOM)--an arm of the Catholic Church--that same-sex marriage violates religious freedom! Whose? How? You don't get the freedom to not be offended. If your religion bans pork, you don't get to outlaw it for others. It's long past time for religious people--particularly the very loud, very bitchy version--to stop pretending that they're persecuted in this country. And to stop trying to make us live by their rules.

[Excerpt]

Religious Beliefs Would Kill Patients’ Rights In New Michigan Bill

In December, the Republican dominated Michigan Senate slammed through a bill that would have allowed medical professionals to deny care to patients for religious reasons. The bill wound up going nowhere in the House and died after the legislative session ended. But now, a similar bill is once again making it’s way to the Senate floor for a vote. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info

Hobby Lobby: WTF?

Odd name for a church.

I know, where have I been, right? Well, it's Christmas vacation, darn it, and I just haven't felt like blogging. Plus, I've been catching up on some chores around this joint. Anyway. . .

I break my break for this comment on the idiocy of religious nutcases. Oh, as an atheist, I might have a slightly lower bar for what I consider nutty about religion. But really, who the hell does the Hobby Lobby management think they are? Why on earth would the owners' own religious beliefs be imposed upon their employees? And who the hell would want their boss to be the final arbiter of your contraception coverage on your health care plan? It's crazy.

It's even crazier when you consider that almost everyone uses contraception, religious or not. Listen you big dumbbells at Hobby Lobby and like-minded companies: your employees don't have to follow your religion or any religion. It's not up to you to make "moral" decisions for them. Unless you certify your business as a church, and your employees are all 100% on-board congregants, you don't have that right. And more than that, you're damaging your brand while playing to. . .who exactly?

[Excerpt]

Hobby Lobby plans to face $1.3 million in daily fines for defying contraception mandate

An attorney representing the Hobby Lobby chain of arts and crafts stores said that the company intends to defy a court order that it comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s provisions regarding contraceptives, the so-called “morning after pill” and employee health coverage. According to Associated Press, the company says that it is willing to face the up to $1.3 million in fines it will accrue per day by not providing coverage for the medications. . . 

Read more at: Raw Story

Legitimate Rape®

It's kind of amazing that something so horrible--based on something so stupid--can still be funny. But then, I've always had an inappropriate sense of humor.

Rand Paul Tries to Put Conception Amenment to Flood Bill

Image from source, Think Progress

Okay, you guys, just stop it. Stop it, right now! Yes, we know that you care about almost nothing besides abortion, and gettin' the black dude out of the White House. But it's getting old.

The first time I saw a story about a "personhood" bill, I thought it was just sloppy. They couldn't really want to give a zygote full-human-being status, could they? They can't really believe that there is a full-fledged human the day after you've had sex. . .right? But they do. They couldn't really have meant to outlaw some forms of contraception in the process, that was just unfortunate verbiage. Right? Nope, turns out the really crazed anti-abortion crusaders do want contraception banned.

But it doesn't play very well when put to a vote. It lost in Mississippi of all places, badly. And yet they keep trying. While the GOP racked up many victories in 2010, they did it on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. On which, they've done nothing. It's all abortion, all the time!

[Excerpt]


Republican Senator Tries To Add Conception Amendment To Flood Insurance Bill

Floods and abortions are distinctly different topics — except to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who is trying to attach an anti-choice amendment to the Senate’s flood insurance bill. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Video Compilation of Limbaugh Attacking Sandra Fluke 70 Times

Image found at Sodahead

When discussing the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke story, it is always important to point out that Rush wasn't just wrong for treating a private citizen that way. He had the entire story wrong. Nothing he said bore relation to reality. Fluke wasn't talking about her own sex life. She wasn't talking about anyone's sex life. In fact, a major part of what she was talking about was contraception as medicine. It had nothing to do with taxpayer funding.

I've said all of this before, but it doesn't really seem to be sinking in. The Rush fans and FReepers are still calling Fluke a slut, heedless of the fact that it's all in pig boy's fetid mind. Pisses me off. And the ones who feel the need to try to save face have tried to make some sort of point using Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin names. Which is the classic apples-to-oranges comparison.  Aside from the fact that Palin is a public figure, she was used as a punch line. Limbaugh used Fluke as a punching bag. Don't believe me, watch this:

Found at: AmericaBlog.com

Rush Limbaugh (and his supporters) are Inside the Bubble

I don't know how Rush fits in there.

There's something odd going on right now. First, it's odd that Rush Limbaugh and his vile self have overshadowed the GOP presidential contest. But second, it's odd that the whole episode is being argued by Rush and his supporters from an alternate universe. They are all inside the bubble, using their own "facts," irrespective of what is actually going on.

I was just listening to Kevin Wall, the local Las Vegas drive-time host on KXNT radio. He started with a clip from Don Imus about Rush, calling his "apology" insincere. Wall then asked his listeners to vote on that topic. Then, he launched into a diatribe about how Sandra Fluke wanted "us" to pay for her birth control. That she was 30, and should buy her own, not expect it for free, with "us" footing the bill.

Fluke wanted nothing of the kind. She was--first of all--not arguing for herself, but for a friend of hers. And that friend--a lesbian with no need for contraception--needed the pill for ovarian cysts. And because her insurance--which she must buy as a student at their school--didn't cover it. Even at her doctor's request. This has nothing to do with Fluke's sex life, which she never discussed. This has nothing to do with "us"--taxpayers--paying anything. Here's a link about the whole thing, if you want to know more.

But how can Rush turn this into a now nearly week-long battle (losing now nine sponsors), when the actual meat of the story is 100% wrong? How can simpleton Kevin Wall continue the discussion with no idea what the story is actually about? And how can Rush's fans and supporters be standing with him, still insisting that Sandra Fluke is a "slut?" This is astoundingly stupid.

Rachel Maddow: Rush Limbaugh Doesn't Understand How Contraceptives Work

Rachel Maddow proves Rush Limbaugh's ignorance/stupidity regarding birth control in this highly entertaining piece. And along the way, Rachel explains who Sandra Fluke is, what she wanted to say, and how this totally not about Limbaugh's take on "sluts." The meat of the story starts at about 4:30 in the video. Enjoy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart on Virginia's "Trans-vaginal Probe" Law

You know, I've often said here that as a middle-aged gay man in a long-term same-sex marriage, the subjects of birth control and abortion are just not my issues. At all. But even I can see the insanity being rained down by the GOP on both local and national stages. For instance, only a loon would say that the "morning after" clump of cells is a person. And most people probably think that these personhood proposals don't intentionally rule out whole classes of contraception. They'd be wrong about that. I've recently learned that the right-to-life crowd has moved beyond fretting about third, second or even first trimester pregnancies, and right up to the second the sperm meets the egg. Insanity.

But the anti-abortion measures being taken up in Virginia lower the bar on insanity. Government mandated, medically unnecessary, trans-vaginal probing? THIS is smaller government? WTF? Something this crazy can only be adequately dissected by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Because it belongs on Comedy Central.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Punanny State - Virginia's Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

SNL: "Really!?! With Seth & Amy" on Birth Control

Amy Poehler came back along with her friend and host, Maya Rudolph. So, viewers were lucky to have a reunion of the old Weekend Update team, Seth Meyers and Poehler. Their  Really?!? segment was one of their best, and this new one is no exception. Hilarious.

The Phony Baloney "War on Religion"

A certain segment of the American populace loves to pretend that they're put apon, marginalized and under attack. It isn't all religious people. It isn't even all Christians. It's the usual suspects: ultra-conservative, (usually) white, (outwardly) straight, (often) male evangelical Christians. There are others that ebb and flow in and out of this beleaguered lot, from Mormons to Catholics, but it's mostly those that I mentioned. They act as though they're outraged, but they're not really. They're thrilled to act the part of victim.

It's gotten so bad that Christians can't even pray in public.

This is obvious if you frequent right-wing blogs, right-wing talk radio, or FOX "News." The reactions are so over the top, the stories so tailored to the victimhood narrative. In the most recent case, with President Obama's plan for insurance contraception plans, the obviousness is glaring. Even after the Catholic Church itself was removed from any direct funding for contraception, right-wing world is still wobbly on its axis. But as one of my favorite writers, Eugene Robinson points out below, Christians are not under any sort of attack, or in any kind of danger that they're going to lose the right to practice their religion. It's preposterous. Don't believe me? Pay attention to your fellow humans between now and Easter. Any changes? Anything different? Didn't think so.

[Excerpt]

Drumming up a phony war on religion

At ease, Christian soldiers. There is no “war on religion,” no assault on the Catholic Church. A faith that has endured for thousands of years will survive even Nicki Minaj.

It never occurred to me to evaluate the Grammy Awards show on theological rectitude, but apparently we’re supposed to be outraged at the over-the-top “exorcism” Minaj performed Sunday night. The hip-hop diva, who writhed and cavorted amid a riot of religious iconography, is accused of anti-Catholic bigotry — and seen as an enemy combatant in an escalating “war on religion” being waged by “secular elites,” which seems to be used as a synonym for Democrats. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Jon Stewart on Abortion and Birth Control, Pt. II

Jon Stewart is even funny in this second part of Monday's abortion and birth control topic.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart on Birth Control and Religion

Hilarious.

In Case You Missed It: Rachel Maddow's Op-Ed on Abortion and Birth Control

It's really, really, really big government to have it
controlling our sex lives, isn't it?

As I've said before, this is not my issue. But it's been stirred up to a frenzy (probably because the economy is improving) in politics lately. Rachel Maddow wrote an op-ed this weekend on the subject, and makes several good points. It's worth a read. So, read it, won't you?

[Excerpt]


War on birth control

In 2008 in Colorado, a rebel faction of antiabortion activists decided to pursue a “personhood” initiative. Over the objections of the mainstream antiabortion movement, they proposed amending the state’s constitution to redefine the word “person” to include zygotes. Under the proposal, “from the moment of fertilization,” a woman would be considered two people under Colorado law. When the initiative went before voters, it failed by more than 40 points. . .

Read more at: The Washington Post