Pirate's Cove

Even a few Leftist Supreme Court justices were worried about “slippery slopes” during the oral arguments Tuesday at the Court. The lawyers should have told them “hey, that’s an interesting point, however, we are concerned with the government forcing our client to provide free abortifacients in the insurance they partially pay for, not some nebulous hypothetical”. Chiding a judge who has certainly made up her mind prior to oral arguments isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Here’s the latest from Ruth Marcus

Slippery Slopes Before The Court

In the context of talking about limits on free speech, it’s common to say that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. That seems like a sensible way to think about the freedom of religion case just argued before the Supreme Court: whether employers can be required to pay for contraceptive methods that would violate their religious convictions.

Most disputes about religious freedom are bilateral — with the government on one side and the individual claiming infringement of religious liberty on the other.

But Tuesday’s cases, involving Oklahoma crafts store Hobby Lobby and Pennsylvania cabinetmaker Conestoga Wood, implicate a third party — the companies’ employees, and their rights under the Affordable Care Act to no-added-cost contraception. Respecting the religious claims of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood threatens to diminish the rights of their workers.

Ruth goes on to whine about Citizens United, as a Good Progressive should, whining about companies not being people. But, companies are made up of people, and those companies have certain beliefs. Consider Chik-fil-A: they are closed on Sunday’s, even in malls. Not every employee cares, some are probably not even Christians. In Liberal World, they are being punished for the beliefs of the company. They don’t get to work on Sundays.

Ruth’s central point is that denying abortifacients, which is the primary cause of the Hobby Lobby case, to employees diminishes their rights. Well, no one is stopping the employees to express their right to work somewhere else.

But where to draw the line on corporate personhood is just one of the slippery slopes these cases pose. The other involves what religious claims to respect and how to balance competing needs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed this issue a mere 42 words into Clement’s argument: What about employers religiously opposed to vaccines? Or blood transfusions?

What about them? Here’s an interesting point: they can bring up their own lawsuits. Furthermore, those are a wee bit more important than whether someone can get free condoms and birth control pills, as well as sterilization and abortifacients. Especially free. Especially when the PPACA does not actually include a mandate for to provide those, nor provide any of those for free. The entire “mandate” was created by Team Obama. Are there any employers actually trying to deny those? Any examples? There does come a point where there is a “compelling case” for the government to mandate coverage. And, are they free? In most cases, no.

If things like these are so darned important, why are all life saving drugs and procedures not free? In fact, most drugs are not free under Ocare. People must first meet the deductible, of which the average Ocare deductible is a shade over $5,000. At that point, people will then pay copays to get the drugs. You can get all sorts of free preventative screenings per Ocare (which simply raises the price of insurance), along with a few drugs. What about cancer drugs? HIV drugs? Insulin? How about smoking cessation drugs? I take OTC allergy pills, and, since one of those allergies is dust mites, I take one at least 4 days a week. Why are they not free? I need them for quality of life, certainly more than someone needs a $2 condom.

Progressives proclaim that this is all anti-woman Yet, they did not include free mastectomies or other things necessary for women. How about free mini-pads and tampons? Pills to help with heavy flow days and water retention? Hysterectomies?

Why contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Because this was a political decision designed to patronize the Democrat voter base. Period. Barbara Boxer complains that this is a slippery slope to denying AIDS medicine. Yet, those medicines aren’t provided free per either the ACA nor an HHS rule. Strange. HIV/AIDS patients have to first meet their deductibles, then have copays.

Not offering contraceptives, sterilization procedures, nor abortifactients, whether free or at all, has no bearing on the “rights of workers”. Those workers can pay for them themselves. Or find another job. It really is that simple, once you get beyond the unhinged rhetoric of Democrats.