Posted on 07/01/2014 1:02:52 PM PDT by shepardspie33
NORMAN, Okla.-- As expected the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood on Monday. To be clear this case was not decided to any degree on the basis of the First Amendment. The ruling was based entirely on statutory grounds of the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which prevents the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Since Health and Human Services (HHS) had already provided exemptions to the contraceptive mandate to “houses of worship”, nonprofits, and companies with less than 50 employees it seemed rather clear that forcing these companies to comply with the mandate was not the least restrictive means. In granting those exemptions they left the Court, or more succinctly the swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, with no choice but to side with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.
Two of the questions that often arise about this case is whether or not the validity of the claims that these particular contraceptives are actually abortifacients should have bearing on the sincerity of the religious objections, and whether or not a corporation can exercise religion.
In regards to the issue of whether or not the contraceptives are abortifacients the court stated in its majority opinion that “It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
This left Hillary sputtering, because the decision hinged on a law signed by Bill Clinton. How does Hillary take issue with a religious freedom law signed by Bill????
Despite the stupid sputterings of the Hildebeast, those who understand the Constitution know there is no “right” to abortifacients. For another good article on the matter read David A. Cortman’s piece in today’s USA Today:
The Supreme Court did NOT get it right, because they did not go far enough. ANYTIME those who own or control a company object to ANYTHING on conscience grounds, they should not be forced to follow violative government edicts.
Of course they didn’t (on purpose)....it is just Dialectical Materialism-—one step back and two steps forward (to placate the intelligent). Our whole Marxist healthcare system/VA system/”education” system is totally a page out of Stalin’s Constitution-—not America’s. All of these “Rights” are non-existent and anti-thetical to the Natural Rights from God.
Their “rights” always makes slaves of the producers and denies science and Truth/God and Reason. Can’t do that in our “Justice” system.
All the Justices except Clarence Thomas need to be tarred and feathered and run out of the US. Maybe Scalia, if he recognizes the unalienable rights of the unborn human beings.
It is functionally impossible to have a right to anything provided at the expense of someone else.
That is a simple law of the nature of rights, to claim otherwise is to turn the concept of rights on its head often making them exclusive to themselves. In other words two people can’t have the same right, when one or both of them would be required to provide for the other as the requirement would be in conflict.
The Left in their stupidity reveal their total ignorance to Natural Law. This ignorance allows them to create public policy that clashes with the natural order. They create tyranny to enforce that policy.
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.