The War Against Women Invades The Court


On Tuesday, a startling rift appeared on the U.S. Supreme Court — as the three female justices came out swinging like Brunnhildes — women warriors — for what they erroneously labeled an “entitlement” to employer-provided contraceptives and morning-after pills.

Betsy_McCaughey

The justices were hearing oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a case hyped by the Democratic Party as a test for women’s rights. Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor jumped on Hobby Lobby’s attorney, interrupting his every sentence and pummeling him with questions taken right out of the Democratic Party’s “war on women” playbook.

That playbook was laid out in a brief that had been filed by 19 U.S. senators and 91 members of the House, all Democrats, supporting the Obama administration’s legal war against Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores that provides health insurance to all employees but refuses to cover morning-after pills, such as Plan B and Ella. The owners, the Green family, try to run their business according to biblical principles, including closing on Sunday, forgoing hauling beer, even when their trucks have to run empty, and not providing abortion drugs.

Sen. Patty Murray claimed, “What’s at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO’s personal beliefs can trump a woman’s access to free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act.”

Nonsense. Not one word in the Affordable Care Act guarantees health plans will cover birth control products. There is no right. President Barack Obama and his secretary of Health and Human Services added that requirement by regulation. Women have a constitutionally protected right to use birth control, but nothing guarantees that they can get it from employers.

It was shocking to hear Kagan make the same spurious claim — that women are entitled to employer-provided contraceptives — during oral argument: “Congress has made a judgment, and Congress has given a statutory entitlement, and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage.” Wrong, Kagan. Did you also forgo reading the law, like most members of Congress?

The distinction between a regulation and a law is no small matter. As Hobby Lobby’s lawyer stressed in his closing statement, a statute, in this case Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, trumps a regulation.

Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 expressly to shield believers, such as the Green family, from any government requirements that would impinge on their ability to practice their faith.

Kagan showed little patience for that concept and asked whether a victory for Hobby Lobby would invite employers to object to other treatments like blood transfusions and vaccines. “So one religious group could opt of out this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform.” Correct, Kagan. Her vision of a uniform society, where all are forced to put aside their diverse beliefs and march in lockstep with the government’s mandates, sucked the oxygen out of the courtroom.

In contrast, the six male justices, despite their ideological differences, searched for a way to accommodate the administration’s goal without injuring the Greens and other employers spiritually opposed to abortion drugs. These justices called attention to the fact that these drugs are not expensive. Perhaps the government could step in and pay for them. Poor women already get help with birth control products through Medicaid, federal community health plans and Planned Parenthood.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often regarded as the Court’s swing vote, asked the Obama administration’s lawyer: “Under your view, a profit corporation could be forced in principle … to pay for abortions?” The lawyer replied, “But there is no law like that on the books.” Justice John Roberts shot back, “Isn’t that what we are talking about … ?”

Later, Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer asked what would happen if Congress passed a law similar to a recent Danish enactment barring the slaughtering of animals while they are conscious. Would for-profit butcher shops run by Jews or Muslims be allowed exemptions? The three women justices were disinclined to exempt for-profit companies. Not so, the six men.

Look for a likely 6-3 ruling that if you like your god, you can keep your god, even if you also have to make a living.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and the author of “Beating Obamacare.” She reads the law so you don’t have to. Visit www.betsymccaughey.com.

Also See,

Bullies Against School Choice

Also see...

Related Articles

3

Liberal Students Have A Funny Definition Of ‘Diversity’

Cancel the philosophy courses, people. Oh, and we’re going to be shuttering the political science, religion and pre-law departments too.

10

Room at the Top for Bachmann or Cain

The conventional wisdom is that the GOP nomination race has boiled down to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Not so

0

End the Bed Tax Scam

Buried in Barack Obama’s budget (last year’s, of course, because this year’s is still late) is a common sense idea