We've moved! Come join us at Watchdog Arena, where you'll continue to find the same quality articles that expose waste, fraud and abuse as well as examine policy issues at all levels of government.

Please visit our new home and follow us on social media: Facebook & Twitter

We've moved!

Come join us at Watchdog Arena!

Sign Up for Watchdog Updates!

Opinion: Hobby Lobby Stores vs. Health and Human Services

Though much has been written about Justice Alito’s majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, what about Justice Ginsberg’s dissent? One citizen takes a closer look. 

Speaking for the dissenting Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg made the argument that not only does she value the Constitution less than the Affordable Care Act or ACA, but the citizens of the country (that the Constitution protects) fall even further down her priorities list, especially when they own a business.

Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_official_SCOTUS_portraitIn her 35 page dissent, she argues that Hobby Lobby, a closely held corporation (which is by all accounts nothing more than a successful family business) is protected by neither the Constitution nor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, also known as the RFRA.

Ginsberg writes, “The Court does [should] not pretend that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause demands religion-based accommodations so extreme”…  Extreme???  What is extreme about Constitutional Protection?  She attempts to diminish the RFRA with equal deception.  What in her view is morally superior?  Of course it is the ACA.

Additionally, her view is that the Constitution and the protective RFRA signed by President Clinton does not extend to Hobby Lobby or any other closely held corporation (including small businesses), and the owners should not seek guaranteed protections from paying for abortion drugs that are in direct contradiction to the values of the company’s founders.

Ginsberg goes on to argue that companies must comply with “regulations requiring group health plans to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”  What she does not say is that four of the twenty contraceptive measures on the ACA’s list are not contraceptives at all, they are abortion drugs.

Why is Justice Ginsberg attempting to guilt trip businesses by pretending it is only fair for them to comply with regulations?  One view could be that she is smart enough to know that if the focus were on the ACA’s true intentions of unfairly shifting the cost of contraception and abortions from the individual to business, the public would reject it.  The burdening of business with new costs in a down economy would be a poison pill for the left, especially so close to the upcoming midterms.

Such honest demands will not be palatable on the plate of voter fairness, so she conveniently hides behind half-truths intended to confuse the facts and elicit sympathy for the Sandra Flukes of the world.  Justice Ginsberg’s statements appear intended to give the entitlement society the hope and change of raw meat to snarl over under the table.  Those darn “Fat Cats” of “Big Business” are starving us again?

Lawlessness of the old west?

Lawlessness of the Old West?

From the start of her dissent she falsely warns that the 5-4 majority ruling gives business the unfair advantage to opt out of “any law (saving only tax laws)”… they do not agree with based solely on sincerely held religious beliefs.  Sounds like the lawlessness of the Old West, right?  Wrong!  Hobby Lobby is not Ike Clanton incarnate and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is certainly not Wyatt Earp.

Her dissent reads less like a legal opinion and more like an undergraduate’s personal opinion in that she opens by purporting a contrived problem (lawlessness) that only she and her liberal colleagues can save us from. Of course, if you suspend the fact that the protection being granted is to Hobby Lobby, a closely held and not public corporation.

Hobby Lobby complies with the law, and at Hobby Lobby’s core are sincerely held religious beliefs that happen to be constitutionally protected freedoms.  Maybe there is a minuscule chance that Justice Ginsberg might be saving us from runaway tumbleweeds.

However, for that to be the case, one has to further suspend the fact that the religious freedoms being protected here do not criminally harm others and that Hobby Lobby have an impeccable record and are generous to their employees by adding numerous benefits to health plans.

On second thought, Justice Ginsberg’s arguments fall flat.  Only when one closes the right eye and cocks their head to the left, it might appear that Justice Ginsberg may actually have a blank in that shaky pistol.  But that would only be after the reader ignored the fact that at the heart of her argument, she flat out asks everyone to ignore provable truth.

Justice Ginsberg blatantly denies empirical data found in the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. 1, extending to corporations the status of personhood.  Therefore, she deceptively argues that the Court should not extend to Hobby Lobby the same religious protections guaranteed by the Constitution to persons.

In her opinion the entity is not a person.  She tries to argue away the sense that her point is flimsy Jurisprudence at best when she asks her reader to follow along based solely on the fact that, “context,” makes this situation different.  What context Justice Ginsberg?  The context that this particular business honors Judeo-Christian values?

shutterstock_3070366Is that why we should not give this family business turned family owned (closely held) corporation Constitutional protection?   Justice Ginsberg chooses to not believe the clear and legally defined status of corporations.  Remember when the left swung wildly at Mitt Romney with this non-connecting but politically expedient haymaker?

Should we follow Justice Ginsberg and suspend the Constitution to first pledge allegiance to the Affordable Care Act?  In her world, maybe the ACA takes precedence.  However, oddly enough, she does not give the same deference to the RFRA as she does the ACA, interestingly.  Upon further examination, her point is based on a context that only left-leaning justices and their like-minded supporters can see.  It is called turning a blind eye.

Her arguments are at best hair splitting inaccuracies and at worst the most egregious mistruths.  Justice Ginsberg at her lowest falsely claims her moral high ground is that the selfish Hobby Lobby denies all 20 forms of contraception and preventative screenings required by the selfless Affordable Care Act.

The fact of the matter is that Hobby Lobby agreed to pay for 16 of the 20 contraceptives and preventative screenings.  The four contraceptives that Hobby Lobby could not agree on were not contraceptives at all, but pills used as abortion methods such as the controversial “Morning After” pill.

When Justice Ginsberg has to beg sympathy for the Fluke, stretch the truth, omit facts, and ask her reader to deny provable facts, then the left has to ask, “Do we have our priorities right”?

Click here for the full opinion of the court.

Featured image: Rob Wilson / Shutterstock.com

Categories: Courts & Law, Healthcare, Opinion, Regulation
Tags: , ,

RELATED ARTICLES

  1. South Carolina Supreme Court Takes a Second Look at James Brown Settlement
  2. SC: James Brown companion moves to ban DNA-proven children from estate hearings
  3. UN Official Says State Marijuana Legalization Violates International Law
  4. VA: Possible Criminal Charges for Incident at Brooke Point High School
  5. 2015 bill in Virginia requires conviction for civil asset forfeiture

COMMENTS

comments powered by Disqus
Login