“Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55)”
There’s a difference in “Could cause” as in side effect and deliberately prescribing them to cause an abortion.
Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.
I agree that the govt should not mandate it, any mandate is wrong, or “tax” as our chief justice called it. But they clearly also say they oppose the drugs.
There is also a huge moral difference between innocently covering a LONG list of drugs (prepared by a physician who may not have cared about early abortion), without being aware of the uses of all of them and continuing to cover those drugs once you are aware of the moral dimension. Once ObamaCare drew attention to the formulary and to that particular issue, Hobby Lobby was morally obligated to stop coverage.
“Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.”
True, BUT they also specifically object to insurance coverage for those two specific ergs, which they provided previously. I don’t think it matters (companies can change their minds just like anyone else), but something like this just may be enough to sway a “centrist” guy like Justice Kennedy - he may look at this and say that it suggests that Hobby Lobby’s religious belief is “insincere,” or something like that. Gives him an easy way to decide the case without having to decide the religious liberty issue.
Their abjection is to mandated funding for abortion and infanticide. Not potential side effects of some medications.
Exactly!
In East Africa, many girls would try a high dose of chloroquine (malaria prophylaxis & treatment) as an abortifactant).