Commentary: What the Hobby Lobby Case is Really About and the False Claims of the Left
Original article posted here.
The issue is rather simple. Either you believe women have a greater right to abortion-inducing drugs than I have a right to practice my religious beliefs, or you believe I have a greater right to practice my religion than you do to an abortion pill.
This is the issue that faced the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. There are two conflicting “rights” being decided. One is a right that was inserted purposefully in our Constitution, the other was invented. One is from God, the other is from Romans 1.
It is in times like these when worldview matters and when analyzing the worldview of others is important to understand a key concept, without a Christian Worldview the worldview of others can and will devolve.
Take, for instance, the head of Planned Parenthood. Immediately after the decision she noted that this decision goes against science and health. You have to wonder, what kind of science is she talking about? This decision is about ethics, morals, rights. Are these issues that Science can address? The other issue they brought up was “health.” Even here, when it deals with healthcare, we are not talking about the life of the mother or the normal health of a mother. At issue were 4 pills that aborts a baby. When a woman goes through the natural child-bearing process, this is being billed as a health issue. I tried to find one situation where these pills were able to save the mother’s life or to make her healthier. I can’t find one instance anywhere.
In reality, this has nothing to do with Science or Health, it has everything to do with abortion. They, the left, view abortion as a greater right to be preserved than religious beliefs.
Other news clips show women lamenting, “These women will now have to pay for these pills.” Yes, that is the point. In reality, there are four pills among all the drugs in Obamacare that Hobby Lobby objected to. If you want those four pills, you can pay for them yourself, but you shouldn’t be able to force people to pay you for them.
The worldview being portrayed is rather simple. You should pay for my abortion even though it violates your religious beliefs. In other words, my “right” to take a pill is more important than your right to live according to God.
Let me be frank, this make-believe right the left is advancing is a whirlwind of confusion masked in the language of “rights” and “liberty.” There are no rights being violated. There are no liberty issues at stake. There are no insurmountable problems this is causing. This is all about abortion and it is clear the left worships at the altar of dead murdered babies with more vigor than most Christians worship at church on Sundays.
The left is attempting destroy religion by incorporating the Baal sacrifice of children into the lives of Christian men and women who would rather die themselves than to see one baby die.
In listening to the left, I heard logical fallacies advanced. The DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, used the often repeated fallacies to make her case.
“This is a stifling decision for American women, It’s a decision that blocks women from being able to make their own health care decisions. … This is deeply troubling, because you have organized religions that oppose health care, period.”
This decision really blocks women from being able to make their own health care decisions? Really? Are there religions that really do oppose health care (strawman argument)? Where are all those business owners who oppose all health care? Why aren’t they suing the government?
Wasserman Schultz also expressed concerns for later implications of the law, pointing out that women use birth control to treat illnesses, such as endometriosis and serious menstrual cramping, and saying “the life function day to day for women is dramatically impacted by this decision.”
The decision was limited to four pills. For some reason Wasserman Schultz thinks every pill, pills that help endometriosis and menstrual cramping were banned. Building a strawman, she uses irresponsible language when she says, “the life function day to day for women is dramatically impacted by this decision.”
Seriously? Can anyone give me ANY person who needs these four pills to solve those women’s issues? In fact, those four pills are not used to in the way Wasserman Schultz states.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg took it even further when she said, “It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employer’s beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.”
Name me one person in the United States who is going to be denied contraceptive coverage. There are none! In fact, only four pills were ruled in this decision. These drugs are not contraceptives, they are abortifacients. They are not designed to limit pregnancy, they are designed to destroy life.
This ruling is a good ruling, but there are problems in this ruling. It will not secure religious liberty for long. We may have won the battle, but the war remains and the left will continue to try to force us to live according to their worldview.
Derick Dickens has an MBA in Leadership, MDiv, and MA in Religion. He speaks regularly on topics ranging from Christian Worldview issues to business leadership, and he is an Adjunct Professor of Business and Human Resources. Derick is also an award winning public speaker, speech evaluator, and leader. Married for 16 years to his wife Lacie, they have three children and live in Lynchburg Virginia. You can follow Derick on Twitter at twitter.com/derickdickens.