The Other McCain:
Years ago, while reporting on federally funded research — the infamous “porn arousal” studies at Northwestern University — I developed what I like to think of as the Existential Theory of Liberalism: To a liberal, nothing exists unless it is mandated, subsidized and/or regulated by the federal government.
If you think it is a waste of taxpayer money to give a creepy psychology professor a federal grant to measure women’s sexual arousal to pornography, you will be condemned as “anti-sex.” If you want to reduce deficit spending by limiting tax money for the National Endowment of the Arts, you’re “anti-art.” Don’t agree with proposed EPA environmental regulations? You’re “anti-science.”
The reaction to today’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case— where a business objected, as a matter of religious liberty, to ObamaCare’s mandated insurance coverage for contraceptives — is a case in point: Liberals want us to believe that, unless businesses arecompelled by federal law to provide contraception to their employees, contraception will cease to exist.
https://twitter.com/rsmccain/statuses/483646110292914177
LifeNews has more examples of the "pro-choice" side threatening to burn #HobbyLobby stores to the ground. http://t.co/oKvoiXWB0a #tcot
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) June 30, 2014
Hey feminists, I'll gladly keep my rosaries off your ovaries once you remove your vagina from my wallet. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness
— Chelsea O'Gruenwald (@chelseagrunwald) June 30, 2014
Hobby Lobby NEVER objected to covering ”contraceptives.”
They include 16 different kinds in their standard medical coverage!
What they objected to was covering ABORTIFACTANTS.
There are 4 abortifactants that Obama wanted to be FREE to all females.
CBS news got that wrong.
ABC news got that wrong.
Sandra Fluke got that wrong.
So, why be surprised is all these hashtaggers got it wrong?
Hysteria is the goal. This decision will be folded into the “war on women” meme.
My copy of the Constitution does not include health care as an inalienable right.
I guess my copy does not match the one in the WH.
Eek! Eek! Eek! This decision will legitimize refusal to pay for blood transfusions, miscegenation, and disparate pay scales for women and men, and probably bring back slavery. At least this was the prevailing media response.
Mr Alito’s trenchant observation about the underlying decision should be listened to.
What I take from the response to this SC decision is that the progressives are illiterate, and cannot use simple logic. Abortion is not possible if there is no fetus. A fetus is not possible without insemination. Insemination is not possible without the introduction of sperm into the woman’s body, last time I heard. And who controls this insertion?
Not the State. There is no State control over insemination. An entity is not responsible for an action over which it has no control. Sorry. That is elementary moral logic.
Thus I conclude that I am not responsible for a woman’s choice to allow insemination, and therefore should not pay for it. I guess I am anti-woman.
Take one aspirin, grasp it firmly between your knees, and no insemination will take place, thus no abortion will be needed. Very simple. I learned that many years ago.