John F. Kennedy said, "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." What a wonderful saying and so very true, especially now when various individuals are "screaming" about the so-called "war on women" following the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court.
If the midst of a multitude of serious scandals that the President and his followers are facing, the Democrats are now instead focusing their energy, and they hope the public's displeasure, on the court's decision. Instead of recognizing that this ruling is very narrow and only affects those closely-held companies that try to operate in accord with their religious principles, the liberals claim it reflects a Republican "war on women," the same stupid idea that the left preached during the 2012 election and that so many silly women actually fell for.
The court's decision is based upon religious freedom which is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Further, in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed by Congress (unanimously in the House and 97-3 in favor in the Senate) and signed by then President Clinton. This law requires "the government to meet a high standard when interfering with the free exercise of religion. The feds must narrowly tailor such rules and use the `least restrictive means' at their disposal for achieving some public good, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece July 1. The Court's opinion reflects the First Amendment and the RFRA. That is all that it does.
In fact, the Hobby Lobby decision does not in any way prevent women's access to birth control. There are 20 drugs/devices which were "regulated" to be covered under ObamaCare. Hobby Lobby has no issue with covering 16 of these drugs and does. Their objection is only to the four abortifacients/devices. They sued because their deeply held and practiced religious beliefs dictate that they not support abortion in any way, shape or form. That is all that the court supported in its decision.
There is no "war on women." People like Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, Hillary Clinton, and Sandra Fluke sound ridiculous in ratcheting up their rhetoric in an attempt to turn this decision into something it isn't and in an attempt to scare those women and some men as well who haven't taken the time or can't be bothered to look at the facts.
Women (and men) with common sense and the ability to think for themselves should look at this decision as a reinforcement of their First Amendment right to practice their religion or lack thereof without government interference. These abortifacients/devices are still available to them just as they were before the court's decision. It's simply that if one works for a closely-held company with deep religious convictions, one now has to pay for those four abortifacients/devices oneself as one did before 2012.
A closing question from Lillian Hellman: "Since when do we have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?"