Rightbloggers Go to Holy War for Hobby Lobby, Against Abortion Pills, Lady Judges

At National Review, Rich Lowry bade us get to know the smiling faces of "the Greens of Oklahoma City" -- David and Barbara, who run Hobby Lobby and, before the Obamakommando came after them, "weren't disturbing the peace, or denying anyone his or her rights. They were minding their own business -- quite successfully and in keeping with their Christian faith." (They were also paying for their employees' birth control. So much has changed since then!)

pinocchioabortion.jpg
So to recap, govt. thugs murder Jiminy Cricket and enslave Pinocchio. Also Pinocchio owns Hobby Lobby, yet despite the grosses from his movie can't afford to pay Obamacare fines. (Via.)
But "then one day Uncle Sam showed up to make an offer that the Greens couldn't refuse," continued Lowry, and "Hobby Lobby went from an inoffensive business to a scofflaw and an alleged combatant in the 'war on women' in no time at all -- and without changing any significant employment or business practice." Whoever heard of a law changing? Thanks, Obama -- or rather, per Lowry's thesaurus, thanks "coercive sweep of Obamacare," aka "the Obama-era project of running roughshod over moral traditionalists," which wants to "bring Hobby Lobby to heel" and thus assert "its pinched view of religion," which is that Big Gummint must "overawe any person, business, or institution whose beliefs run counter to officially sanctioned attitudes."

Lowry's colleague Yuval Levin told us what liberals, as imagined by him, believe: "that society really only consists of individuals and the government, and that the various institutions and power centers that lie between the two are inherently illegitimate and should either be seized or pushed aside when they get in the way of public-policy objectives." You know liberals, always pushing and seizing, especially when it comes to conscience exemptions -- like try withholding tax money because you don't want to pay for the military and see what they do to you! (Whereas Ted Cruz would totally let that shit slide.)

Because Justices Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor had the temerity to ask questions during the hearings, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom madsplained what they actually said: "fuck the First Amendment. And fuck natural, unalienable rights. We're in charge here, not some airy fairy notion of rights that we are not allowed to provide or take away," etc. After this lengthy monologue, Goldstein told us that "what we're witnessing is a coup" and that the Court's Obamacare decision in 2011 -- in which you will recall the Justices did not order Obama to be executed by Jeff Goldstein, but upheld most of the law -- "may prove to be the very last tug on the thread that unravels Constitutional protections, individual autonomy, and the entire Bill of Rights." Don't worry, folks, he does this every week, the prankster! (Amy Ridenour noticed Sotomayor asking Hobby Lobby about paying the fine, and portrayed it thus: "Justice Sotomayor may be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater." What is it about liberals and murdering babies?)

When Kagan "asked whether a victory for Hobby Lobby would invite employers to object to other treatments, such as blood transfusions and vaccines," professional health-care-system wrecker Elizabeth McCaughey said at the New York Sun that "[Kagan's] vision of a uniform society where all are forced to put aside their diverse beliefs and march in lockstep with the government's mandates, sucked the oxygen out of the courtroom." Next thing you know they'll be putting fluoride in our water. McCaughey followed up, "What a contrast to the six male Justices, who, despite their ideological differences, searched for a way to accommodate the administration's goal without injuring the Greens and other employers spiritually opposed to abortion drugs." Lady justices ruin everything!

Sean Davis of The Federalist didn't care for the ladies' "ridiculous" arguments, either. When Kagan said Hobby Lobby had a choice of providing health insurance or paying a tax, Davis snarled, "Justice Nebuchadnezzar could not be reached for comment, but he would surely agree with Kagan's reasoning. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, after all, weren't forced to bow down and worship the golden idol constructed by Nebuchadnezzar. He gave them a choice. They could do this thing which violated their religion or they could do another thing. Thankfully, the Supreme Creator intervened on behalf of the three men and issued an injunction that stayed the mandatory furnace penalty." But soon it will be Kagan and all Obamatheist bitches who will face the fiery furnaces! Also, Plan B is abortion.

"Justice Kagan, You Gotta Serve Somebody," warned Francis J. Beckwith at The Catholic Thing. "The religion that the Greens, and many Americans, practice... is about who one is going serve. The attempt to capture it in the categories of law and economics, as Justice Kagan tries to do, simply distorts that reality." If anyone sees Beckwith outside chambers with a vial of "holy water," contact the authorities.

It got so that if someone spoke favorably of the female Justices, rightbloggers abused them: When Jeffrey Toobin said the women of the Court "rocked" the Hobby Lobby argument, noted legal analyst Ace of Spades growled, "I'm not convinced [Toobin's] smart enough to qualify as deceptive. When a dog poops on your couch, that's not dishonest.... these people who currently occupy elite positions? Are not elite. Who knows what would happen if these thick-witted, ignorant chair-holder-downers were pushed aside in favor of someone who knew what the hell they were talking about." Let of Ace of Spades write for The New Yorker, and he'll show you namby-pamby city-dwelling types how to deconstruct gender issues.

"What happens when the federal government seeks to replace God by defining 'church' and when life begins to have value, the latter having been done in Roe vs. Wade and subsequent court rulings?" asked cranky wingnut geezer Cal Thomas. Well, that answers itself -- what happens is the fascist dystopia we find ourselves in now! "Caesar needs to get back on his side of the church-state line," cried Thomas, but "it's going to take a Republican Congress and a Republican president with courage and a new health insurance plan to repeal Obamacare and start over with real reforms that protect religious believers and enhance health care." Plus Jesus. Don't forget Him.

At National Review, Kevin D. Williamson offered a column called "Antithought," showing President Obama under the gaze of Orwell ("George Orwell gave us some invaluable words: Newspeak, doublethink, thoughtcrime...") and offering his customary opinion that liberals are Hitler squared, of which Hobby Lobby was portrayed as just another symptom. Apparently Paul Begala said that Clinton investigator Ken Starr's involvement in the Hobby Lobby case showed he remains "obsessed with sex." This may seem a feeble joke to most of you, but Williamson saw it as a jackboot-to-human-face-forever threat:

"Mr. Begala has enjoyed great success deploying the 'obsessed with sex' antithought for a decade and a half now," claimed Williamson -- well, who knows, we never watched Crossfire; maybe "obsessed with sex" was Begala's catchphrase, like "Dy-no-mite!" was for J.J. Walker. Anyway: "The Clinton machine began chanting it in the manner of an Arkansas-based cargo cult during the Lewinsky affair," Williamson continued, and used this chant to convince voters that the Republican prosecution of Clinton was creepy. Williamson, you will be unsurprised to learn, remains enraged that it worked. "President Clinton was so sex-obsessed that he was willing to risk his presidency and the national interest in exchange for treating the White House intern pool as his personal seraglio," he sputtered, "...but it was Ken Starr who was 'sex-obsessed'..."

Williamson went on to condemn the use of sarcasm against conservatives as a species of "antithought," in which "such content-free phrases as 'X much?' (e.g., 'Straw man much?' 'Issues much?' etc.), 'must have touched a nerve,' and the like pass for insight, even wit." How far our discourse has fallen since the Ciceronian age of George W. Bush. Orwell wept!

Williamson had previously expressed outrage that people laugh at Jon Stewart on TV; he seems to have internalized the conservative idea that when people laugh at Republicans it is not comedy, but Alinksy, and must be resisted with elaborate restatements of "that's not funny," which always works.

If you wonder how they get so hysterical about this stuff, the answer is, they work on it. Gaze upon the work of Rod Dreher at The American Conservative. Last week he told us that some liberal admitted some other liberals are intolerant, and Dreher took this as support for his long-standing contention that the atheists are going to put all the Jesus people in concentration camps. "One lesson conservatives are learning from all this is that liberals don't mean it when they seek 'dialogue' and 'tolerance,'" asserted Dreher. "They are only looking for a foothold, and when they get it, and feel strong enough, they will suppress conservative opposition in the name of justice and morality... Sooner or later, there will be a backlash against our own post-Christian American mutaween (the Saudi religious police). And it's going to be ferocious."

Not just fantasizing repression, but fantasizing the ensuing backlash to the repression -- that's some world-class crazy! Considering this is their default level of paranoia, it's no wonder they get freaked out when someone's right to decide what medical treatment their employees receive -- excuse us, Jesus' right to decide it -- is challenged.

My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
alexander.bollinger
alexander.bollinger

Just pointing out that you're being too generous to the right on one point (I knooooow...): "The embryo-killer he refers to is Plan B, which prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall..." Not true. Plan B was thought to maybe prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall, but that was a decade ago and that was thoroughly debunked. Plan B only prevents the release of the egg, thus preventing conception. It's on Plan B's Wikipedia page.  

The right's response is that their religious belief that Plan B prevents attachment should be respected by the government, which, if accepted, would literally nullify every law ever. I *believe* that stabbing this dude and taking his money is good for his health and my religion says that he consented to the whole thing, so why am I being arrested?

wesell02
wesell02

Seems to me like this is being blown out of proportion.  The overstretch seems to be on the side of the ACA.  Why would any insurance (other than Public Aid) pay for medication available OTC?  The plan B bills are all OTC for anyone 17 or older.  Gee, I'd like for them to pay for my multi vitamin and Gingko.  Maybe it's a war on the Middle Aged.

dstatton
dstatton

Just wondering...do the policies cover Viagra for unmarried men?  Procreation within marriage is the only reason for sex, so they have no need for an erection.  Even to jerk off.

McSalmon
McSalmon

All this, so a pack of smug asshats can keep their money, knee the law in the balls, and punish people for the audacity of wanting health care, and claim they did it all for Jesus and the little babies. I hold that the Hobby Lobby sells nothing so damned important that every store couldn't be plowed under and turned into a park, and anyone would miss it.

alexander.bollinger
alexander.bollinger

@wesell02 Why would insurance pay for Plan B? Because it's a whole lot cheaper than pregnancy, birth, and childhood medical needs.


Also too, this case isn't just about Plan B, it's directly about several contraceptive devices (that aren't OTC) and is effectively about all birth control, about all medical treatment that an employer may object to, really.

wesell02
wesell02

@kurt.haslett @wesell02 And how is that selfish?  Does your insurance pay for Over the Counter (OTC) Meds Kurt?  I have never heard of any that do.  Why would they include it in the ACA?


McSalmon
McSalmon

@Mustanggt05 @McSalmon@wesell02Hobby Lobby is not committed to the beliefs of their employees. They have somewhere over 10000 employees across their chain, and I can guarantee you that very few of them were consulted when the management decided to take away part of their health insurance for religious beliefs that they don't share. Hobby Lobby's commitment of belief begins and ends at the Green's welcome mat. 


If this passes, and God help all of us, it very well may, what else can we expect? Can they fire an employee who has an IUD? Or had an abortion? Can they punish a worker who has had a divorce? Can they stop IVF treatments next? Can they administer a warning to employees who bring carnitas to a Friday pot luck instead of fish? Can they require a tithe? They may not be interested in these changes, but under such a ruling, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.


My understanding is that HL was approached by lobbying orgs to act as a test case against the ACA though a potential loophole. No problem, this happens all the time, but let's be honest with ourselves - this isn't some expression of deeply held beliefs on the part of the Greens and the folks at Hobby Lobby and Conestoga; this is a cold political maneuver designed to undermine a law that is currently providing millions with low cost health insurance.

Mustanggt05
Mustanggt05

@McSalmon @wesell02 As I interpreted the reading HL insurance has always paid for BC (about 20 different kinds) including condoms, diaphragms and all of the hormonal pills and implants.  Now the ACA had included OTC plan b type pills and the IUD which are used to interrupt implantation after conception. 

IMO this is what happens when we try to force a one size fits all insurance plan.  Too much law and governance creates  a lack of flexibility and creates problems where problems have never existed.  Regardless of how this shakes out, I applaud HL for spending time and resources to take this to the finish line.  They are definitely committed to their beliefs and employees.  If they weren't they would just pay the fine and push everyone onto the exchange.


McSalmon
McSalmon

@wesell02 It isn't just about OTC medication for Birth Control - there are many different types of birth control, and Plan B is supposed to be a last ditch effort. IUDs for example, are expensive to implant. Others aren't so expensive, but require a prescription, and a doctor consult. 


But, that isn't the main issue to start with. The SC isn't hearing arguments on whether Hobby Lobby can decide not to support BC in it's employee plan, it's deciding whether it should be exempt from the fine for non-compliance on religious grounds. That! is the main issue; whether a corporate body, which exists by the grace of the state to begin with, can have a religious belief at all. The founders can, the board can, but the business itself is supposed to be an independent body from them. 


If the SC finds in their favor, it means that a corporate board can break a law on the basis of a 'religious code' which they may institute as they see fit, while still enjoying the limited liability from lawsuits and the like from their legal charter. It is, at best, an invitation for mischief and at worst, a catastrophic legal precedent which could damage the rights of all other citizens.


And, again, this is all over a bullshit move on the part of the people behind Hobby Lobby - they previously HAD a policy that allowed for BC as I understand it, and just wanted to tweak it without paying the fine. I repeat - no one in this world needs glitter and scrapbooks so damned badly that Hobby Lobby would be missed if every store was turned into a softball field.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...