[Rushtalk] Why Hobby Lobby case matters -- White House hides anti-life agenda in ObamaCare

Carl William Spitzer IV cwsiv at copper.net
Fri Jul 4 08:06:23 MDT 2014


Why Hobby Lobby case matters -- White House hides anti-life agenda in
ObamaCare

 

By Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.



FoxNews.com

·         
660-Supreme-Court-Birth-Control.jpg

·          

March 25, 2014: Demonstrators participate in a rally in front of the
Supreme Court in Washington, as the court heard oral arguments in the
challenges of President Obama's health care law requirement that
businesses provide their female employees with health insurance that
includes access to contraceptives. Supreme Court justices are weighing
whether corporations have religious rights that exempt them from part of
the new health care law that requires coverage of birth control for
employees at no extra charge. 

 

An acknowledged devotee of pop culture, President Obama recently took a
few moments out of the State dinner for French President Hollande to ask
another dinner guest, the chief of HBO for early copies of both "True
Detective" and "Game of Thrones." But for real insight into contemporary
politics in the Obama-era, we need to go back to "The Sting," the 1974
Academy Award winner for Best Picture.

Based on a book called "The Big Con," the intricate story of two
confidence men could also loosely portray the deception involving the
Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate, coming to the Supreme
Court Tuesday. 

This isn’t about women’s health care; it’s about using ObamaCare as a
Trojan Horse, sneaking normalization of life-ending policies into
American society.

 

This administration has successfully put “The Con” in contraception,
by hiding an anti-life agenda in the construction of the Affordable Care
Act and forcing Americans to fund anti-life drugs mislabeled as
contraception.

Tuesday, noted attorney, Paul Clement will stand before the Supreme
Court to argue Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius andConestoga Wood Specialties v.
Sebelius, in defense of the Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, who
believe that the HHS regulations which require them to provide
life-ending drugs, violates their conscience, which is protected under
the First Amendment.



In so doing, Clement will be exposing a massive and deliberate
disinformation campaign that has promoted life-ending drugs and devices
as unobjectionable. And more importantly, cast these life-ending drugs
as essential “health care.”

Confucius taught that defining words created reality. He said he would
“fix the language” if given the choice of ultimate power. “To
govern,”Confucius said, “means to rectify names.”

With deft misdirection, the administration has focused the public debate
on “contraception, “as well as on whether the government can force
religious organizations opposed to contraception to pay for these drugs
and devices in their health insurance policies. This is the debate that
the administration wants to have.

They do not want Americans to see the long con they’ve set up that moves
us all toward normalizing and mainstreaming life-ending drugs and
devices by mislabeling them as contraception. And then coercing all to
pay for them.

Confucius would be proud.

Most Americans do not know that Hobby Lobby has a history of providing
contraceptive coverage in their employee health care plans. They do not
object to contraception, but to life-ending drugs that have been
mislabeled as “contraception.”

For many women today, “pregnancy” as a personal reality, begins when she
first sees the results from a home pregnancy test. The scientific
reality is that the life of a new human being begins much earlier at
conception and that drugs can end that life – something the aborticide
industry and their lobby actively and proudly promotes.

This question of when life begins is the central question of fact in the
Hobby Lobby case.

Notably, advocates of these drugs and devices, including Dr. James
Trussell of Princeton and the Guttmacher Institute, recently authored
an article “Embracing post-fertilization methods of family planning: a
call to action” in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive
Health Care. In the article, cited in our brief, they assert, “we should
openly acknowledge” and even “celebrate” the post-fertilization,
life-ending mechanisms of action of these drugs and devices.

The fact that life begins at fertilization is settled science. In
the brief Americans United for Life filed in support of Hobby Lobby and
Conestoga Wood Specialties, we detail the post-fertilization effect that
life-ending drugs inflict, sometimes preventing a new human being from
continuing to live by implanting in the uterus.

The brief was filed on behalf of several medical groups, all of whom
represent doctors and nurses who believe that being forced to provide
coverage for such life-ending drugs violates their constitutionally
protected freedom of conscience.

Some antagonists will dodge this bright-line reality centered on the
beginning of life, by arguing that “pregnancy” does not begin until
implantation. Some won’t address the issue at all.

Recently, Fusion TV’s Jorge Ramos asked Cecile Richards, President of
Planned Parenthood, when life begins and her reply drew some attention
for its rhetorical evasion. “I don’t know,” she said, “that it’s
relevant to the conversation.”

But it is relevant, as companies opposing their forced funding of
anti-life drugs take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even if we cannot agree on the ethics of destroying embryos that have
not yet implanted, some of the drugs under consideration have extremely
blurred lines. One of the drugs specifically covered by the coercion of
the HHS mandate, ella is a chemical cousin of the aborticide drug,
RU-486, and works similarly. In fact, FDA labeling cautions that
using ella during a known pregnancy is “contraindicated.”

 

Abortion advocates have moved from choice, to coercion, using
job-killing, business-crushing fines to force compliance with their
agenda. This isn’t about women’s health care; it’s about using ObamaCare
as a Trojan Horse, sneaking normalization of life-ending policies into
American society.

What could not be won at the ballot box is attempted in the big Con,
mislabeling life-ending drugs as “contraception,” providing new income
streams for an industry that deals in destruction and confusing the
debate by conflating healthcare with anti-life policies.

Using rhetoric to disguise coercive power is an ancient art.

Our First Amendment was designed to protect pluralism. The Obama
administration has put “The Con” in contraception – and our essential
freedom is at stake.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. is president and CEO of Americans United for
Life. Follow her on
Twitter at CharmaineYoesthttp://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140704/8b0a63cc/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140704/8b0a63cc/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13021 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140704/8b0a63cc/attachment-0001.jpe 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list