Clinton said she found the implication that “a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom” to be “deeply disturbing.”Well no actually. If Clinton read the actual decision she would see that the court did not declare that a corporation has the rights of a person. The ruling states:
d the laws of those States permit for-profit corporations to pursue “any lawful purpose” or “act,” including the pursuit of profit in con - formity with the owners’ religious principles. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1301 (2001) (“Corporations may be incorporated under this subpart for any lawful purpose or purposes”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 18, §§1002, 1005 (West 2012) (“[E]very corporation, whether profit or not for profit” may “be incorporated or organized . . . to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes”); see also §1006(A)(3); Brief for State of Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in No. 13–354.So no, Mrs Clinton. It is that corporations, profit or non-profit, can be organized for any legal purpose and one such legal purpose may be to make money in a way consistent with the founder's religious beliefs. Shocking, I know. Therefore what is actually disturbing is that a person seeking the highest office of the land (again) not only doesn't read court decisions before commenting on them, but doesn't understand how and why corporations may be formed. Of course, when you think you are entitled to shit, such things do not matter. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! Clinton continues:
“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said.Notice the entitlement. Sales clerk wants contraceptives, well certain types of contraceptives, but the clerk should have it paid for by the employer rather than out of her own pocket. This same clerk I presume would be aghast if the employer were to tell her who and under what circumstances she should have sex. How exactly do you fix your mouth to demand someone else pay for your private activity while simultaneously demanding they stay out of your private business? But even IF she thinks someone else should pay for her contraception (other than the man she's planning on having sex with, who is, IMO the logical target for such an pay scheme), It does not dawn on Clinton that there is a far more constitutional means to do so: Government can pay for it (and provide it). And also look at the sleight of hand that Clinton used: She said "employer doesn't think she should use contraception". That was not and is not at stake. What was at stake is WHO PAYS for contraception. Whether the employer thinks it's a good idea or not is immaterial and was not in dispute.
Clinton discussed how her career has focused on the rights of women and girls in particular. Chief among those rights, she said, “is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families.”You know what, I'm totally on board with that. Women deserve and have a right over their own bodies. 100%. They deserve and have control over their own health care. Control over the size of a family is a joint decision IMO. But the point here is that NOTHING in the Hobby Lobby decision impacts any of that. Hobby Lobby (and others) wants no parts of certain choices. That is totally in line with Clinton' thinking. A woman's control over her body should and has No bearing on my wallet or my business. I want no parts in the decision on what doctor, facility or whatever that a woman chooses to provide for her healthcare. And that decision should have no parts of my wallet or my business. What Clinton and her ilk don't understand, because they are Entitlement Queens, is that she is actually promoting putting other people into the private business of women and she expects them to sit back and take it. I kinda blame Bill (what the meaning of is is) Clinton for that. He has spent a few decades kissing Hillary's ass to make up for his past behavior. Women who are not regularly told "no" by men are unfamiliar with the concept.
“So does this mean whoever wrote that concurrence is in favor of a single-payer system for contraception?” Clinton asked.The Ghost has been and is 100% for single payer healthcare. The Ghost also noted, multiple times, that such a scheme would have constitutionally addressed a number of issues. I will remind the reader that it was DEMOCRATS that took single payer off the table in favour of what we know of as ACA.
She also warned that companies may soon try to roll back coverage for treatments like blood transfusions. “I mean, this is a really bad slippery slope,” she said.This is a stinking red herring of an argument that I dealt with in my previous commentary. Firstly, the scope of this ruling was pretty clear in that not all objections can or will be sustained. Secondly as pointed out in earlier postings, blood transfusions, unlike contraception is a life saving technique. A patient may decline immediate life saving treatment via living wills and the like, but not an insurance company (and we're not talking experimental cancer treatments, or non experimental treatments that are known to have slim chances at life savings). There is exactly zero chances that such a claim, even if made, would be approved. Clinton is being shrill and she knows it. Let's look at the protestors: Josh Earnest playing White Knight:
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and added that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”Serious question: How is contraception jeopardizing women's health? Do you get pregnant by sharing a needle? Do you catch pregnancy by inhaling a virus or bacteria? Do you get it from food poisoning? Is pregnancy, generally speaking a life threatening condition and if so, why was that chick running a 800 meter race while pregnant? The answer of course is that the lack of "free" contraception (they even object to co-payments) is not a jeopardy to women's health anymore than the lack of free Motrin is. Secondly, this decision does not prevent any woman from making personal healthcare decisions for themselves. It actually, in fact affirms that they have to make health decisions for themselves and not with the assumption or expectation that everyone and anyone else is obligated to finance those decisions.
Mr. Earnest urged Congress to find ways to make all contraceptives available to the companies affected.Which, I will note, they ARE available, just not for free to the purchaser.
A supporting brief from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy group, said that many women cannot afford the most effective means of birth control and that the coverage requirement will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Justice Ginsburg cited the brief in her dissent.Quick note. The most effective means of birth control is not having sex. This is beyond dispute. Once one decides that one will have sex, then one takes on the responsibilities for the consequences of such actions. If one is unable to pay for whatever means of chemical or physical birth control, then it is also likely that one is not in a position to deal with the consequences of said behavior. Why then should private citizens be on the hook for financing the choices made by people who are not being responsible in their decisions? Lets look at statement from Ginsberg:
“The court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers,” she wrote. “For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.”Ginsberg shows her complete ignorance of certain religious bodies and their texts. Since the debate is focusing on Christians then I will
“The thought of your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can’t get is offensive and it certainly is motivating to women to vote,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which plans to spend several million dollars this year to campaign for Senate candidates.Again, the Entitlement Princess does not even think that there is anything wrong with forcing someone else to pay for her life choices. It is beyond her comprehension. How dare these folks say "no" to me. Along with that she completely confuses the issue. It is not your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can't get. It is your boss telling you what he or she WILL and WILL NOT pay for. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it these folks feel entitled to make other people do things and pay for things they have no wish to pay for? Do other people (non-females) have rights that others (females) must regard? Here's Lori Lamerand
“It’s really unbelievable that we’re still fighting for access to birth control in 2014,” said Lori Lamerand, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of MichiganOf course the fact is that "we" are not fighting for access to birth control. "We" are fighting the idea that an enumerated right to free exercise of religion can be abridged by the government over the planned privilege of free to the user birth control. Not a single woman, not a one, is unable to get birth control as a result of this ruling. Women have the same right to birth control that they had before the ruling. But here goes the Entitlement Queen perspective: How dare these men say "No" to providing for me a product I desire. Am I the only person who recognizes entitlement language when I see it?
“A woman’s decision to use birth control should have nothing to do about her boss or her bosses’ beliefs. We can imagine a scenario where a woman has to lobby her boss to be able to use birth control pills.”Let me guess, Lori also imagines the 1 in 5 statistic to be true as well. I can imagine a lot of things. Quite the opposite (religious schools excepted), this ruling takes the boss out of the equation. If the boss cannot pay for contraception, then the boss has no interest or say in who gets to use it either. It's that whole "he who pays the piper" logic. If I pay for my own shit, then nobody can tell me what I do with it. Of course Entitlement Queens think that not only should the boss pay the piper but that the boss should pass the tune request he paid for to someone else. We close this post with a quote from a non-Entitlement Queen, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller:
The congresswoman also said the court’s decision does not limit the rights of any American to use the form of birth control they choose just because a small employer decides not to cover certain services under employee health coverage.Shockingly logical. Surely she hates women and being a woman.