Yes, and no.
The question of what business it is of the federal government’s to order anyone to do anything about contraception is fundamental. It points to why ObamaCare, and every federal entitlement is a bad idea: the cost is too high in terms both of liberty surrendered and ruinous public expense.
But, the crucial constitutional point for every American is our liberties guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. The issue of the federal government’s telling the Church what to believe, and fund, is chilling. It demonstrates what everyone who isn’t a lefty knows; that when the left talks about liberty, it means something that applies only to its own view of things. Everyone else’s beliefs and actions must conform to iron whim of left, or be crushed under the iron boot.
The subsidiary issue of whether the Church has a reasonable argument on contraception is worth having, not only because of the biological, environmental and social science that evidences the pill to be a very bad thing indeed. But, also because of the flimsy intellectual and legal pedigree of the Leftist position.
It was the left that pushed contraception onto the culture in 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut. That decision was justified by the “sanctity of the marriage bedroom.” By Eisenstadt v. Baird three years later, the equal protection clause was deemed to render that sanctity moot. Contraception for everybody, whoopee!
By 1973, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton made abortion on demand without apology the law of the land using the same reasoning, which incidentally, was the following. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) upheld parents’ right to educate their children; therefore, it gives prospective parents the right not to have them, even to kill them in the womb. How’s that for bull puckey?
In 1992’s Casey v. PP decision, the Supreme Court told us to shut up, and that we were being tested. Because of Ross Perot, Americans dutifully complied with their master’s command and elected a pro-abort’s pro abort as President. By 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the Court was ready to reverse its own 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick on gay sodomy.
This is an entirely illegitimate intellectual pedigree. The Left has never had to answer its critics because the Court has always muzzled the Left’s critics and granted victory to the bad guys with a banging of the gavel and a few disingenuous sophistries on paper. Now that they’ve brought the issue up due to their oafish imposition, it’s opportune, and important IMHO.
Question concerning Roe-and Doe ( and incidently your reply is EXCELLENT— my question is is a Law prefaced upon Fraud -i.e. bad law like an argument rested upon fallacy equally fallacious. In other words —if Roe and Doe were based upon Lies told both in Court and by the Court —ought that law still be respected as Law —or is it no law at all? as suggested by Marbury v. Madison,1803?I do realize that Roe and Doe have been widely accepted as legal and binding but I am not convinced either have ANY Constitutional basis -as suggested by Robert Bork- The Tempting of America— Slouching towards Gomorrah on ROE and Harrys’ abortion.