Hobby Lobby Ruling Escalates Liberal Lies

The Supreme Court ruled that private corporations who have religious objections to certain types of reproductive medications cannot be compelled to provide them. The liberal left has its collective panties in a wad over this and it has been out in full force lying about the decision.

The left claims that the ruling means women will be denied birth control. Let us look at this claim.

First of all, the Hobby Lobby ruling did not deny women access to any drug. The ruling only determined who had to pay for it. In other words, the Court did not deny women access to any medication and only stated that if they wanted those medications they had to pay for them with their own money.

Second of all, the ruling only concerned a certain class of reproductive medications. It dealt specifically with those medications that induce abortion and can terminate life.

In fact, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 reproductive drugs required under the Obamacare Law. Given that fact it is disingenuous to claim that this ruling denies birth control to women. The company involved does not deny birth control to women it only refuses to pay for drugs that induce abortions. Hobby Lobby provides the contraceptives but not the abortifacients. You see, a contraceptive, by definition, is a drug that prevents pregnancy. Once a pregnancy occurs any drug taken to end it is not a contraceptive, period.

But the left keeps harping on this subject as some kind of attack on women. Hobby Lobby pays a minimum wage that is nearly twice the federal minimum wage and offers great benefits which includes health care plans that cover 16 contraceptives ranging from condoms to hormones to implants.

It just will not cover the abortifacients. Women however, are still free to use those drugs so long as they pay for them with their own money.

And that is all the ruling says.

That, of course, is not good enough for liberals who believe that everything should be provided for everyone. With regard to reproductive medication liberals believe that anything a woman wants to use must be paid for by the employer or the government. We must, according to them, stay out of their wombs and mind our own business but at the same time they want others to pay for their medications.

My good friend Kender McGowan made a great point. Given the liberal position on providing a woman with whatever birth control she wants and also paying for that control Kender asks; if a woman decides to keep her clothes on as her form of birth control does her employer have to pay for her wardrobe?

A great point indeed.

The SCOTUS ruled correctly when it ruled that a privately owned corporation could not be forced to violate its religious beliefs. Birth control is NOT a right. Freedom of religion is.

To make matters worse the liberals are arguing that women must get birth control (something that is NOT required to live) while ignoring the lack of medical treatment and life saving medications our veterans deserve.

While liberals argue for free reproductive medications veterans are dying while waiting for care that is actually life saving.

And unlike reproductive medication, the care veterans deserve is care they actually earned.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “Hobby Lobby Ruling Escalates Liberal Lies”

  1. Mike Ontiches says:

    Here’s a tip to avoid looking like an utter fool, even as an anonymous coward: If you’re going to call people liars, don’t tell lies.

    “[T]he Court … stated that if they wanted those medications they had to pay for them with their own money.”

    Wrong. You obviously didn’t read the decision. The government itself will pick up the tab.

    “[T]he ruling only concerned a certain class of reproductive medications. It dealt specifically with those medications that induce abortion and can terminate life.”

    Wrong again. The two drugs (not four; see below) that Hobby Lobby refused to cover prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, and implantation is a prerequisite for pregnancy. Get your basic reproductive physiology straight before sounding off.

    “Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 reproductive drugs required under the Obamacare Law.”

    I don’t know what planet you’re from, but here on Earth we don’t refer to IUDs as “drugs.” Ella, Plan B, copper IUD, hormonal IUD. Those are the four forms of contraception at issue here. This is not complicated.

    “It just will not cover the abortifacients. Women however, are still free to use those drugs so long as they pay for them with their own money.”

    Repeating lies does not make lies true. This is also not complicated (to most people).

    “My good friend Kender McGowan made a great point…”

    Your friend Kender McGowan is incapable of making great points, or valid points. He is a bloated, angry woman-hater whose rage about his own circumstances is obvious and bleeds into every pathetic attempt at writing he has ever made.

    The rest of your post, and your site, is garbage. Of course, you are free to post as stupidly and hatefully as you like, for this is America.

    Try harder next time. I think you can do better.

    M.O.

    • Big Dog says:

      Dear Mike, The ruling stated that the companies did not have to pay for the items. It offered as a solution that government COULD pay for them but did not mandate it. Another solution is for them to pay for it.

      Since the company’s owners believe life starts at the time the egg is fertilized then any item that ends that would be, to them, ending life. Items that prevent implantation would be ending life according to their beliefs. I understand reproductive physiology. I also understand morons who think that everyone should pay for their stuff.

      Is an IUD food? It is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and if it is not a food then it would fall under what? It is technically a medical device but requires a prescription to get. Classifying them as drugs was an easy way to refer to them though medical device would be more accurate. In any event, they are regulated devices that require a prescription.

      I understand your frustration. You think that all of our lives must be regulated by government and that we are unable to pay for our own devices. It is OK, go drink more kool aid and hit the bong and you will feel better. The reality is that government does not belong in health care. It does not belong in anything not allowed under the Constitution (the federal government, the states have more freedom).

      And son, it is no lie to say that none of the medications or devices or whatever you want to call them were banned by the Court and that women could still obtain them by paying for them themselves. This is absolutely true. While the Court offered a remedy of the government paying for them the reality is they are not banned and women can get them ANY time they wish by paying for them…

      • Mike Ontiches says:

        Much of this response is quite reasonable, even if it required some back-pedaling on your part to try to make it appear as if you wrote your post with a complete command of the facts in question. Obviously, anyone who can afford a given medication is free to simply buy it. This, however, is not exactly what the concept of health insurance is built around. And if we are individually free to define medical terms in light of our religious beliefs, then why not take it a step further and define coitus interruptus as “abortion” too? Maybe you would not personally do so, but a lot of religious types happily would.

        As for the stereotypical implication that anyone who disagrees with a far-right-wing and inaccurate post is motivated by a desire to shed personal responsibility and get someone else to pay for everything in his life, sorry, but that’s just dumb and very much off the mark. I suppose my Army service was also nothing more than an attempt to suck off the government tit?

        • Big Dog says:

          I am not backpedalling at all. I wrote the post prior to the printed ruling being available. AT that time the excerpts involved two incorrect items. One was that the Court had denied several types of BC to women (which is still being pushed by those who hate the ruling) and the other was that they had to buy it themselves. The actual ruling did not state who had to buy it only who did NOT have to buy it. It did suggest one remedy as to have the government pay for it but did not require that as a solution leaving the obvious conclusion that if it was not banned you were free to buy it with your own money.

          Health insurance is a commodity (not a right). It is something that people should be free to choose or not to choose to buy. But you raise an interesting topic. If you have a car you are required to have car insurance (these two are not similar since one can refuse to own a car and therefore not have insurance) but the car insurance does not pay for everything. It only pays for major events that are not normal wear and tear.

          Car insurance does not pay for oil changes, tune ups, gas, wiper blades, light bulbs, etc. Why does everyone expect health insurance to pay for everything particularly BC which is in no way an item required to sustain life. It is a convenience medication to prevent a pregnancy. Yes, there are rare uses for other medical problems but many can be treated with other drugs. Why is BC in all forms to be free but heart medicine or blood pressure medicine not? It is all about politics.

          Birth control should not be free, it is a maintenance item and should have a co-pay. Companies should be free to provide all of none of it as they desire.

          As for how religion defines things all people are free to do that. If you want CI to be defined as an abortion (which is contrary to the definition of abortion) you are free to do that and your company if free to define it that way. But tell me, how do you feel about laws requiring people to allow Muslims to not sell pork products if they work in a grocery store?

          Keep government out of health care and none of these problems would exist. This plan is about controlling people not providing health care. Like gun control it is about control, not guns.

          As for your last paragraph, I suggest you read your earlier response for typical reactions.

          If you served in the Army you took an oath to the Constitution and not to any person or party. That includes the First Amendment whether you like it or not.

          • Mike Ontiches says:

            “I wrote the post prior to the printed ruling being available.”

            And yet you wrote with obvious boldness and confidence and self-assuredness. That’s funny — you deny backpedaling, yet here you say, “Well, I wrote all this stuff, but that was before I knew the facts.” And don’t blame “incorrect snippets.” You know (or should) that until the actual ruling is out there, you’re going to see incorrect reportage on it.

            “tell me, how do you feel about laws requiring people to allow Muslims to not sell pork products if they work in a grocery store?”

            Replace them. If someone refuses to do something based on the supposed whims of an imaginary sky fairy, that’s fine, — unless it means you can’t do a job you were hired to do. Same goes for Christians who work as pharmacists in places they don’t own and won’t fill ‘scripts for Plan B.

            How did you really think I answer this question?

            • Big Dog says:

              What I said was that I, like all major news organizations across the country, based what was reported on the Executive Summary, if you will. Now, I amended mine to indicate that the court did not say they had to pay for it but that is certainly a remedy and that NO ONE WAS DENIED BIRTH CONTROL as was and is still reported by the MSM. When major news orgs and Scotus Blog is reporting summaries that are nearly the same then I can have some confidence that it is fairly accurate. This time not exactly. Perhaps you can focus on those who continue to say the ruling denied women access to certain drugs or devices (were denied birth control) which is a lie.

              How about a business owned by Muslims who refuse to sell pork? Is that OK?

              You don’t get to determine about fairies int he sky, your belief is not what drives the bus. You get to exercise yours but not say what a private business allows. I say it a little different, if you work for a business that does not provide what you want then find another job. Wait, if I can fire someone wo will not sell pork or issue plan B then I can just fire anyone who wants pork or plan B and be done with it. Better yet, when I have to downsize I can just fire anyone with an Obama sticker on his car.

              The business belongs to the owner not the employee. If you don’t like it then leave.

  2. […] This blog post is a superb example. The anonymous clown who wrote this is an idiot, but deserves a smidgen of credit for at least having a goal of some sort: He believes that veterans should have improved access to health care. Never mind that his idea of a zero-sum game in this — a wider range of contraceptive options for women *or* medical care for vets — is a fucking shambles; despite his crippling biases, he seems at least vaguely attuned to the idea that realities beyond simply trying to get under others; skin exist. […]