Redefining Rights

My latest column is up at AND Magazine.

 

Here is an excerpt:

It’s amazing how easily a non-issue can be blown so far out of proportion – even to the point of becoming a case before the United States Supreme Court.

 

To hear the Left tell it, you would think that the Supreme Court just declared Christianity to be America’s supreme religion, and made all contraceptives illegal in the U.S. for the rest of time and all eternity. The truth, of course, is a different matter.

 

The owners of Hobby Lobby, a company that provides insurance (which includes contraceptive coverage) to its employees, sued the federal government over a provision of the Affordable Care Act which has come to be known as the contraceptive mandate. It’s important to note that the contraceptive mandate was not part of the Affordable Care Act when it was passed by the Democrat majority in 2010. This mandate was added to the law later on by the department of Health and Human Services, thanks to one of several clauses in the ACA that enabled HHS to make all kinds of changes to the law after its passage, basically ensuring that Nancy Pelosi was correct: we really did have to pass the law to find out what was in it, because a good portion of it hadn’t even been written yet.

 

The biggest problem with the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision is that it is based entirely on lies and misinformation.

 

Continue reading here.

Advertisements

4 replies

  1. The article is well-written, but it still illustrates common misconceptions. Because the condition of pregnancy is a significant health risk, one only women are subject to, contraceptives are just as much preventive care as are physicals and checkups. And even though a minority of patients require the same hormonal treatments for other conditions (acne, migraines, endometriosis etc.), their needs must be accommodated.

    Employer managed health insurance packages are not something given by the employer as a perk. They are an earned benefit, a part of every employee’s compensation. Employers provide coverage through group plans because they are granted tax benefits for doing it, instead of having to provide additional money so the employee could buy insurance on the open market.

    None of the 20 methods on the HHS list are abortifacients. Though Burwell vs Hobby Lobby affirms that religious objection must be protected, even the majority opinion admits the Green family misunderstood the science. And now, with the Wheaton College injunction, the court majority is signalling support for not even having to facilitate obtaining treatment outside the employer’s health plan.

    • IUDs (two types), Plan B, and Ella are abortifascients. The FDA’s own descriptions of these methods notes that each of them prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
      http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/freepublications/ucm313215.htm

      As for employer-provided health insurance being part of an employee’s compensation, you’re right..but it’s also a perk, because not everyone gets health insurance as part of their compensation package…and employers should have the right to determine what is included in the compensation package they offer to their employees.

      • I’m sorry, Robert, but you don’t seem to have read the link you provided. Here’s a quote:

        “Plan B, Plan B One- Step and Next Choice (Levonorgestrel)

        (picture of emergency contraception pill)

        What is it?

        These are pills with the hormone progestin.
        They help prevent pregnancy after birth control failure or unprotected sex.

        How does it work?

        It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus).

        — The reason the FDA says “may also work by preventing implantation” is because there’s still research going on. However, it says quite clearly “works mainly by” because all the science and chemistry results so far support the conclusion that the mechanism is prevention of ovulation.

        It’s inaccurate to flatly state “they are abortifascients” in denial of established results.

        I don’t really have to cut and paste the same for Ella, do I? It says the same thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s