Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg is upset. She is apparently having trouble accepting decisions from the court upon which she sits. In 2010 she dissented in a fury over the Citizens United case and their continued fight to defend the freedom of speech through political campaign donations. And now her robe is in a wad because the opinion for Hobby Lobby also did not go her way.
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has born approximately sixty lawsuits since 2010 and there are almost twenty private corporations fighting to eliminate birth control benefits. These legal challenges regard healthcare, leading us to the infamous Hobby Lobby case. Under the ACA private companies are required to fund birth control for its employees. Providing birth control violates the religious convictions of the owners of Hobby Lobby David and Barbara Green. The Greens and their company are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The RFRA is “aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion.”
A week ago Ginsburg had an exclusive interview with Katie Couric where the 72-year-old Judge spoke freely of the convictions spurring her 35 page dissent in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court review. She said, “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
She continued that while she had “respect [for] the belief of the Hobby Lobby owners” she believes they have “no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women” who work for them.
I say no, Justice Ginsburg, you do not respect Mr. and Mrs. Green in their disagreement with the Federal government. You are furious that they fought back and won. You do not value the 5-4 outcome of this court or recognize the legal process for the favor of Hobby Lobby and the lawsuit they took forth. The only thing wrong with the court’s opinion is that it should have been unanimous.
The facts are that Hobby Lobby’s position is not to “foist” their religious beliefs on anyone. Hobby Lobby does not require their employees to go to church or reveal their denominational faith if any, when they apply for employ with their company. And keep in mind that long before RFRA was the old ‘arm’s length distance’ of Separation of Church and State. When the law states that the Federal government is not to dictate our religion this would also apply to statutes forcing behavior against said religion. This is against the law and there is protection for the Green’s and their company Hobby Lobby under the RFRA and enforced by the Supreme Court’s ruling with precedence and former application of these laws. The ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is correct and prudent according to the law, not to be determined by the self-righteous political ideology of Justice Ginsburg or anyone else appointed tenure in a black robe.
Federal legislation is not allowed to impose on the personal faith of citizens. This is just another example of a bleeding heart Progressive trying to fix the world as they see fit by telling us what to do for our own well-being, of course. It probably never even occurred to the good Justice when she was deliberating, that aside from being illegal, the intimate subject of birth control is just that: intimate. Whether to use birth control, what kind of birth control if any to use, and who should purchase birth control if needed, is a private matter between two private adults. Birth control is not now nor should it ever be a decision to be reviewed on the court’s docket. There is no legal jurisprudence for the familial responsibility of birth control, and furthermore I find it extremely offensive that you speak for women and advise our youth the ludicrous notion that the Federal government should enforce any employer to pay for birth control for the female employees.
Next, in an attempt to let the general public know the dire mistake the court is making with the SCOTUS ruling siding with Hobby Lobby Justice Ginsburg told Couric, “Contraceptive protection is something every woman must have access to, to control her own destiny.” According to Ginsburg, the decision to allow an employer the right to refuse to cover those contraceptives meant that women would have to provide it for themselves.
Really? It is beyond unfathomable for me to believe that a grown, educated woman would be upset about this. Since she seems to need a refresher course in Sex Ed 101, here we go. Contraception isavailable to every single woman in this country through rhythm, abstinence, implants, Ortho Evra Patch, pills, Depo-Provera shot, Today Sponge, Nuvaring, cervical cap, condom, diaphragm, female condom, and IUD’s just to name a few. Not to mention it takes two people to have intercourse and contraception is available to men as well with abstinence, condoms, vasectomy, and withdrawal to only name a few of the birth control methods available to Americans. As for the young promiscuous types, soon birth control will be readily available at all Public High Schools, so young women can get a head start on ‘planning their destinies’. If a grown man and woman cannot afford a condom they should not be having sex and it is irresponsible for the Government to subsidize this very personal decision.
A spokesperson for Chicago Public Schools said in March of this year, “Twenty-four Chicago Public high schools will start distributing free condoms to students this fall, under a pilot program tailor-made to curb sexually-transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. Stephanie Whyte, Chief Health Officer for CPS, said a five-year, $20 million federal grant for teen pregnancy prevention will include more than free condoms at 24 high schools. A teen outreach component — featuring community service — already includes 18 high schools and 3,200 students-a-year.”
Justice Ginsburg, like it or not, this is a free country and the jurisprudence of the court does not extend to birth control. Neither natural law nor any social factor effecting legal positivism or legal realism gives the judicial system authority to stifle a citizen from purchasing their birth control.
Ginsburg is an activist for equality and espouses that a corporation can sometimes be viewed as an individual but does not respect the equal rights of the unborn child. She believes in freedom of speech unless it refers to how much money a free American wants to donate to a political candidate. And Justice Ginsburg is adamant that unless the government enforces employers to provide birth control for their women employees, their destinies are no longer their own. Although I may not be as intelligent as the notorious Justice, I do realize it is not my place to determine how people spend their money and none of my business what type of birth control people buy for their bathroom cabinet.
In the Couric interview, Ginsburg referred to the fact that the court is “still listening and learning” as they age and says “justices continue to think and can change. They have wives. They have daughters. By the way, I think daughters can change the perception of their fathers….I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”
I totally agree with Justice Ginsburg here as I impatiently wait for Roe V Wade to be over turned.
Trending Now on Politichicks
Sorry. No data so far.