Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Pro-Abortion John Stewart’s Left-Wing Anti-Hobby Lobby Rant

Fox News’s Megyn Kelly has clearly had it up to here with the disinformation, misinformation, distortions and outright lies coming from the left in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. A recent dishonest rant by Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart (noted at NewsBusters by Jeffrey Meyer early Tuesday morning) and attempts by certain doctors to deny scientific truth caused Kelly to correct the record on the air.

The topic is the science behind whether or not the contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby’s owners would not cover in its employee health insurance plan on conscience grounds are or are not abortifacient in nature. In the video seen after the jump (HT Gateway Pundit), readers will see her identify certain perhaps unexpected entities which have admitted that they are:

MEGYN KELLY: Developing tonight, new dishonesty about contraception and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby.

That case upheld some corporations’ religious rights to not provide coverage for certain forms of birth control — four in particular that can end a fertilized egg, which some believe is abortion. [1]

megynkellyNancy Pelosi and other Democrats declared this proof of the “war on women,” telling folks the Court had actually banned contraception, which is false.

The Kelly File corrected the record and urged others to do the same. The next day, Politifact labeled Ms. Pelosi’s claim “False,” and yesterday the Washington Post agreed, going on to denounce several claims by Democrats as “not warranted by the facts.”

This week some liberals are at it again, saying that decision was based on bad science — that the four forms of birth control in no way amount to abortion, because they do not end a fertilized egg, they just prevent conception in the first place. [2]

Here’s Jon Stewart having some fun on that point, which has popped up in several left-wing forums:

JON STEWART: One thing struck me about the decision. Hobby Lobby didn’t want its employees’ insurance to cover certain contraceptive methods such as Plan B, because they said that method caused abortions. The only problem with that is, is (that it is) not, uh, uh, what’s the word I’m looking for, true. [3]

KELLY: To be sure, these birth-control methods do not cause abortion like the ones performed at Planned Parenthood on a table. But they can and do end fertilized eggs — and to many, that is ending a life. [1]

Still, the left maintains that this is all bogus science, offering op-eds by doctors that conclude, at least, quote, “three of these four contraceptives do not lead to abortion, even using the conservative definition of when life begins” — namely, when an egg is fertilized.

Well, there’s the Supreme Court opinion, which specifically finds that, quote, “These four methods may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. It’s right there, in black-and-white.

But maybe those five majority justices didn’t know what they were talking about. They’re probably just citing some Hobby Lobby shill. Uh, well actually, they were citing the government’s own brief. They were citing the government! The government was making this point!

Well, what does the government know? They were basically, it was DOJ representing Health and Human Services. Upon whom were they relying for their facts? Oh, the Food and Drug Administration? The group that actually oversees these very drugs.

Well maybe the FDA wasn’t clear. Maybe it didn’t know what it was — Let’s see what it actually said about these drugs. This is from the FDA.

According to FDA-approved product labels, “A copper IUD works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.” Oh. An IUD with progestin “alters the endometrium,” meaning the uterine lining. Plan B “may inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.” Oh. All right. And “Ella may also work by affecting implantation.” It’s all there in black and white.

The science actually sounds pretty clear. But perhaps the justices should’ve ignored all that, and instead relied on agenda-driven pundits to better understand the science here.

Or perhaps these ideologues should think a bit more before trying so hard to mislead and divide us. [4]

[1] — Kelly was insufficiently strong here. Any drug which “can end a fertilized egg” by definition “can cause an abortion,” and can “end a life.” It’s not a matter of what “some believe.” It’s a matter of fact.

[2] — Kelly actually said “prevent contraception,” a misstatement which I have taken the liberty of correcting to reflect what she obviously meant.

[3] — I added the parenthetical to Stewart’s statement to make it almost coherent.

[4] — Unfortunately, Megyn, the left knows exactly what it’s doing. They’re telling lies to whip up low-information voters’ emotions against the court, Hobby Lobby, and anyone who has supported the company, and betting that they won’t get the truth anywhere else.

How likely is it that the left’s bet on dishonestly portraying the Hobby Lobby decision will work out as they intend it to? Well, that depends largely on those who know the truth making sure that others learn it.

Kelly, Kelly, Kelly and EVERYONE, yes, point out the facts of what amounts to a chemical abortion, BUT ALSO go to the real Constitutional point that NOTHING in the Hobby Lobby decision prevents a woman from using ANY contraception means she choses - NOTHING.

NO means of Contraception is made illegal or denied, to anyway.

What is denied is that people with a conscience against certain types of contraception - that a woman remained legally free and capable of chosing - are not obligated to help her pay for them; but she remains free to pay for them herself or get assistence for them from whomever choses to provide it.

The “I want an abortion” “rights” of a woman remain in force and the “I don’t want to pay for it” rights of everyone else are finally getting the legal respect THEY deserve.

The one thing wrong with Hobby Lobby is that it did not go far enough in the direction it went. The “exemption” it agreed to should be a blanket possibility to ANY employer - ANY - who makes a declarartion of conscience of what it can and cannot in good conscience support.

It takes NOTHING from individuals can legally choose, but it removes the demand that the individual can make someone else pay for it.

Of course, the broader errror is 100% of the insurance policy mandates in the ACA; they should ALL be merely the choice of individuals and their employee.

Even a “subsidized” payment system for the TRULY poor (way way lower than available under ACA) should not entail any federal demand as to what is covered in the plan the individual applies for. Any such subsidy should have zero to do with the plan an indiviual seeks or its premium, but merely limited to a flat dollar amount based on the individual’s income regardless of what plan they chose. They could chose a “better” plan and pay more of the premium themself or chose a “lesser” plan and keep more of their earnings in their pocket - their choice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.