Pro-life news brief 1-3-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Hill reports Nancy Keenan will step down as the leader of NARAL:
She plans to stay on at NARAL through the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — which happens to fall just a day after Inauguration Day. The organization hasn’t picked a successor yet. - Christianity Today interviews Southern Baptist Theological Seminary dean Russell Moore about “why adoption has become his personal cause and why more evangelicals should be joining him.”
- Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma lost a WIC contract:
Terry J. Bryce, chief of the WIC program for the Health Department, said he recommended termination because the organization had a large decrease in clients, had a higher per-client cost for services and was unresponsive to repeated requests for information from his agency….Without a preliminary injunction in place, Planned Parenthood will be forced to stop WIC services… and the group may close its west Tulsa health center.
- At First Things, Jon Shields discusses how Roe v. Wade led to a collapse in the pro-choice movement while spurring the pro-life movement to affect our culture:
While Roe bred apathy and conservatism in pro-choice ranks, it energized many pro-lifers. With the Supreme Courthaving removed abortion from the political process and deprived pro-lifers of normal avenues of political influence, some decided to blockade abortion clinics instead. Between 1977 and 1993, pro-life radicals orchestrated some six hundred blockades, leading to more than 33,000 arrests.Most pro-life activists, however, dedicated their lives to changing the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens, rather than simply obstructing them from procuring abortions. The more Americans who opposed abortion on moral grounds or were offered practical alternatives to abortion, such activists reasoned, the fewer abortions, whatever the laws of the land. These pro-life advocates quietly began countless conversations with ordinary citizens and continue to do so in great numbers.
- The Akron Beacon Journal has an article on how Planned Parenthood staff and an abortion protestor helped another protestor who was hit by a truck.
- Christopher Kenyon Simpson has pleaded not guilty after being accused of killing Ka’Loni Marie Flynn and her unborn child.
- At Public Discourse, Melissa Moschella discusses recent decisions on the HHS Mandate and the attempt of some judges to play theologians:
In the HHS mandate cases brought by Frank O’Brien and the Green family, however, the judges found no reason to doubt either the plaintiffs’ sincerity or the religious nature of their beliefs. To remain within the limits of their competence, their investigation into the applicability of RFRA — and therefore of the need for the government to defend the mandate as narrowly tailored to the achievement of a compelling state interest — should have stopped there.Unfortunately, it did not. Instead, the judges crossed the line by denying the substantive correctness of the plaintiffs’ belief that providing insurance coverage for contraceptives and/or abortifacients is morally wrong. As Judge Jackson put it, despite the plaintiffs’ sincere claims to the contrary, “the challenged regulations do not… prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
In effect, Judges Jackson and Heaton are telling the Greens and Frank O’Brien — and by extension the 108 other plaintiffs challenging the mandate as well — that they, and the religious authorities who support them, simply have their theology wrong.
[Milwaukee protest photo via milwaukeesfinest.net; Hobby Lobby photo via asoftplace.net]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“In effect, Judges Jackson and Heaton are telling the Greens and Frank O’Brien — and by extension the 108 other plaintiffs challenging the mandate as well — that they, and the religious authorities who support them, simply have their theology wrong.” – no they aren’t.
“denying the substantive correctness of the plaintiffs’ belief that providing insurance coverage for contraceptives and/or abortifacients is morally wrong.” – no it isn’t.
The point here is that these fundies are able to adhere to their personal beliefs and ‘morals’. They cannot however, force others to do so. Since companies like Hobby Lobby aren’t religious organisations, there is no basis on which they can deny coverage for employees.
Reality,
”Fundies”? From such a bastion of tolerance like you?
What is there about the 1st Amendment you find so hard to understand? A Kosher butcher or Muslim owned grocery store is not a “religious organization” so would you agree the Kosher butcher can be forced to sell non Kosher meat or a Muslim grocer forced to sell pork and liquor, both in direct violation of their religious beliefs? Yes or no?
No one is forced to work for Hobby Lobby. Also these folks do get paychecks, so why can’t they buy their own birth control? No one is forcing any morality on the employees. Isn’t a morality instead being forced on Hobby Lobby? By the way employees may lose their paychecks, along with their health care coverage should Hobby Lobby be forced to close, but I’m sure that’s more foresight than you can manage.
Most important, and this fact escapes many of you on this blog, is that the president has NO constitutional authority to issue religious mandates. He has NO authority to force businesses and people to act in violation of their faith, even while hiding behind the skirts of Kathleen Sebelius.
I don’t know what Hobby Lobby is so worried about anyway. When I worked at one in college they made sure to schedule everyone just a smidge under 40 hours per week so they wouldn’t have to provide anyone with health insurance benefits.
Noreen,
At least you had a job. Also, were you covered by your parents or the college insurance?
I worked in college as well and my employers, the college and a hospital didn’t cover me either. My parents’ insurance did. The hospital had me classified as “casual” which meant I got no benefits. I could still work though and make money.
“A Kosher butcher or Muslim owned grocery store is not a “religious organization” so would you agree the Kosher butcher can be forced to sell non Kosher meat or a Muslim grocer forced to sell pork and liquor, both in direct violation of their religious beliefs?” – gosh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that Hobby Lobby was being forced to sell polar bears, guitars or … contraceptives.
A kosher butcher would also be expected to comply with the same employee insurance coverage requirements as Hobby Lobby.
“No one is forcing any morality on the employees.’ – not now that the court has made the right decision. But it would have been so otherwise.
“Isn’t a morality instead being forced on Hobby Lobby?” – no, they don’t have to use contraceptives.
“By the way employees may lose their paychecks, along with their health care coverage should Hobby Lobby be forced to close” – they won’t be forced to close. They may choose to close, thats their choice.
“the president has NO constitutional authority to issue religious mandates” – he isn’t, the owners of Hobby Lobby were however, attempting to do so to their employees.
“He has NO authority to force businesses and people to act in violation of their faith” – he isn’t, but the owners of Hobby Lobby wanted to force their faith on their employees.
The US is a democracy, not a theocracy. You can practice your faith, adhere to your ‘morals’ but you cannot force others to do so. And that is what Hobby Lobby were trying to do.
Reality,
Kindly respond to my question concerning the Kosher butcher and the Muslim grocer. Can they be forced to act in violation of their religious beliefs? Whether its paying for something or selling something, can Americans be forced to act in violation of their faith? Yes or no.
The US isn’t a democracy, its a Constitutional republic. The President is not emperor, he does not issue edicts, especially in direct violation of the Constitution.
Reality, even someone with the most rudimentary understanding of economics should realize that daily fines of 1.3 million dollars may force a business to close. Any thoughts about employees losing their paychecks and insurance?
Morality was not forced on the employees Reality, how hard is it for you to comprehend that they get paychecks with which to buy their contraception? No one is stopping them.
“Kindly respond to my question concerning the Kosher butcher and the Muslim grocer. Can they be forced to act in violation of their religious beliefs? Whether its paying for something or selling something, can Americans be forced to act in violation of their faith? Yes or no.”
Of course they can. Do you think an employer claiming a religious obligation not to hire people of a certain race or ethnicity would be excused from obeying anti-discrimination laws?
Hobby Lobby’s recourse against having to provide contraception coverage for its employees was to elect lawmakers who would overturn the contraception requirements. That didn’t happen.
Hobby Lobby’s recourse against having to provide contraception coverage for its employees was to elect lawmakers who would overturn the contraception requirements.
Um, no. Hobby Lobby has recourse through the courts. Their case is continuing on appeal. Eventually, it seems an HHS mandate case will make it’s way to the Supreme Court.
This comes down to how you define “healthcare”. The way things are going it is very likely that a state will legalize euthanasia, and if euthanasia is legal why shouldn’t deadly drugs be covered by insurance? Naturally Christian businesses would object to being forced to pay for drugs so their employees can kill themselves, but I’m sure our friendly neighborhood trolls Reality and Joan will chide them for trying to force their religious, anti-suicide views on others.
“Can they be forced to act in violation of their religious beliefs?” – what, like Kent Hovind who thought he needn’t pay taxes because he only answers to the ‘law of god’? Like those who drive without licences because they only answer to the ‘law of god’? And those who insist on their right to perform female genital mutilation?
If no-one were ever forced to act in violation of their religious beliefs then the US would be a theocracy. The battle to see whose version might be interesting though!
So the answer is YES!
If an employer is legally required to provide medical coverage and the law says that medical coverage must include access to contraception then so be it.
If the law says that schools must teach science rather than fantasy then so be it.
If the law says homosexuality isn’t illegal then so be it.
Shall I go on? How many ‘religious beliefs’ can we ‘violate’ in one day do you think?
joan,
LOL. didn’t address my question joan. I’m not talking about hiring, I’m asking if an American citizen can be forced to violate their religious convictions by gov’t edict. So would you agree that the gov’t could force the Kosher Butcher or Muslim grocer to sell certain items in violation of their religious beliefs? Also, the butcher and the grocer would have every right to expect any employee to adhere to their rules, or seek employment elsewhere.
BTW, privately run organizations that do not receive gov’t funds can limit their membership on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.
Hobby Lobby has the Second Amendment. Unfortunately Obama has black robed thugs.
Reality, 9:17PM
Since your arguments are becoming ridiculous and irrational, I will again invoke Big Joe’s words of wisdom.
Yes well, it would be amusing to discover on what basis you find my response to be ‘ridiculous and irrational’ given that what I have said is entirely accurate. But since you can’t do so I’ll accept your withdrawal.
“LOL. didn’t address my question joan. I’m not talking about hiring, I’m asking if an American citizen can be forced to violate their religious convictions by gov’t edict. So would you agree that the gov’t could force the Kosher Butcher or Muslim grocer to sell certain items in violation of their religious beliefs?”
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about hiring or not. It was an example meant to demonstrate to you that yes, American citizens can, under certain circumstances, be forced to violate their religious convictions by the government. If a neutral law of general applicability requiring all grocers to sell a certain item was passed, yes, Muslim or kosher merchants would be compelled to abide by that law. There’s nothing novel or controversial about this. It’s how the law works.
“BTW, privately run organizations that do not receive gov’t funds can limit their membership on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.”
Who said anything about membership-based organizations? Employers do not get to selectively discriminate based on any of those criteria.
joan,
I wasn’t talking about hiring, understand? Any employees would have to comply with the rules of their employer or seek employment elsewhere. Also, you said if a law was passed, a highly unlikely occurence and ridiculous suggestion. You didn’t answer my question.
Again I ask you, does the government have the right to force Americans to violate their religious beliefs? Yes or no?
joan has answered your question quite clearly Mary, why can’t you see it?
“If a neutral law of general applicability requiring all grocers to sell a certain item was passed”
I’m curious, has any legislature in a free nation ever passed such a law? That grocers are REQUIRED to sell certain items?
Reality,
John makes a great point. Do you know of any law anywhere that dictates what grocers must sell or as I asked joan, the likelihood of any such law? As I said to joan, its sound ridiculous.
“There’s nothing novel or controversial about this. It’s how the law works.”
The law is suppose to benefit people. It is also suppose to embody the will of the people.
The question is not why should employers not have to comply, but instead why is this mandated at all?
Two very different views of the role of govt would need to be reconciled before this discussion could go anywhere, and that’s not gonna happen.
I am opposed to the view that says the government has the right to institute (almost?) any law, except one protecting its people in utero.
Do you want me to hazard a guess or venture an opinion Mary?
“The law is suppose to benefit people.” – it does.
“It is also suppose to embody the will of the people.” – it does.
“why is this mandated at all?” – to provide a better level of healthcare coverage.
Reality,
Not the point.
Most of us would agree electricity is beneficial, we support its use, and it pretty much embodies the will of the people. I know of no one who opposes its use. Mandating it can only be beneficial, at least in my opinion. So, does that mean the government has the right to mandate the Amish to violate their religious convictions and force them to wire their homes and businesses for electricity? My answer is an emphatic no. What’s your Reality?
“I wasn’t talking about hiring, understand? Any employees would have to comply with the rules of their employer or seek employment elsewhere.”
Are you being willfully obtuse? Is the concept of federally-regulated hiring practices (yes, this is a real thing), and how these regulations might clash with your reductionist conception of religious liberty, really that hard for you to grasp? Employees complying with the rules of their employer has nothing to do with my example.
“You didn’t answer my question.”
I’ve answered your question twice now. I have blatantly said, in simple, easy-to-understand English, that yes, the government could legislatively “force” your devout butcher or grocer to provide a product that goes against their religion. It does not matter if such a law would be “highly unlikely” or ridiculous. That’s totally irrelevant.
Mary doesn’t do ‘concepts’ joan, she told me earlier.
She does appear to do obtuse though.
joan,
Tell me about any law that has been passed mandating what grocers must sell. Your example is ridiculous. You talked about hiring. Now the employer may not be able to discriminate, but employees will have to abide by his rules. The Muslim grocer can’t refuse to hire me because I’m not Muslim, but he can dictate that I eat no pork products, such as a bologna sandwich for lunch, on his business premises.
joan, if a such a law hasn’t passed and is highly unlikely to ever pass, its silly to discuss it, is it not? Its just as silly as arguing what would happen if a law was passed legalizing slavery.
“yes, the government could legislatively “force” your devout butcher or grocer to provide a product that goes against their religion”
Well, at least you are consistent, joan.
I guess that clarifies to me your thinking.
“why is this mandated at all?” – to provide a better level of healthcare coverage.”
Come on. BC is not so expensive. People can choose not to work at Hobby Lobby if it’s a big deal to them. Ultimately, if someone thought killing bugs was morally wrong (I personally always try to catch and release), I would protect and support their right to have nothing to do with bug killing. It’s about bowing down to king obama – submission and persecution. I don’t want to think that, but I do.
“Tell me about any law that has been passed mandating what grocers must sell.”
We’re discussing (to the extent that this pitiful exchange approaches the level of “discussion”) government authority, not legislative trivia. The only relevant consideration here is whether the government could pass such a law, not whether it ever has.
“Your example is ridiculous. You talked about hiring. Now the employer may not be able to discriminate, but employees will have to abide by his rules.”
The employer not being able to discriminate when hiring is the crux of my example. The rules he sets for his employees have nothing to do with anything.
“joan, if a such a law hasn’t passed and is highly unlikely to ever pass, its silly to discuss it, is it not? Its just as silly as arguing what would happen if a law was passed legalizing slavery.”
It’s called a hypothetical. And slavery is explicitly forbidden by the Civil War Amendments, so yes, contemplating what would happen if a law purporting to legalize slavery was passed in a discussion about legitimate government authority would be very silly.
Actually there is some discrimination in hiring. A girl sued Hooters a few years back because she wasn’t hired because she couldn’t fit into their uniforms. She lost her case and a judge upheld that Hooters had the right to discriminate against her for being chubby. So there, Joan.
No one is forcing morality on the employees of hobby Lobby. Forcing morality would be the owners saying they will FIRE anyone who uses birth control. They have never said such a thing. They just don’t want to have to provide something that can kill innocent human life. It is funny how the pro-“choice” people like Joan and Reality consistently prove that they are actually very anti-choice. They just love abortion.
Oh and “Go Mary! Go Mary! Go Mary!”
Forget it pro-lifers, it’s Chinatown.
In these latter days, the government has begun forcing its own citizens to violate their own moral beliefs, or be fined into oblivion. The government does this because, in the words of our president, it’s the “right thing to do.” Somehow, this does not count as an instance of the government imposing morality.
When this arrangement is objected to though, we are told, without the barest hint of irony, that we’re the ones trying to impose our morality on others.
There’s no way to reason with this sort of (il)logic. Reasoned debate and analysis are quite beside the point. We share no common ground with Reality or joan. Opposition to contraception is not a point of view that can be allowed to stand in the marketplace of ideas. Like an unwanted pregnancy, it must be destroyed.
The free exercise of religion is not absolute in the US. Burdens on free exercise can be imposed when there is a compelling reason. This is a good thing since I doubt any of us want to see religious followers be able to freely practice human sacrifice, “honor” killings, etc.
I believe the Supreme Court will eventually rule that the HHS mandate is excessively burdensome without compelling reason. At least, I hope that’s how they will decide. The fact that our government is arguing in court that people that own secular businesses give up their free exercise of religion is very disturbing. IMO, everyone should be able to see that it’s wrong, even if they think there is nothing wrong with contraception or sterilization. To think that anyone thinks it’s reasonable to mandate that people violate their consciences and that religious freedom can be trampled to ensure “access” to contraception (which is already readily accessible and cheap) and sterilization (elective surgery) – it boggles my mind.
“the government has begun forcing its own citizens to violate their own moral beliefs” – exactly how do you claim this is happening?
exactly how do you claim this is happening?
Pfft. With the HHS mandate, of course! You don’t have to agree that contraception and sterilization are immoral to grasp that if a person DOES believe they are immoral it violates their conscience to be mandated to offer these immoral things to their employees. It must be especially difficult for owners of SELF-INSURED companies, such as Hobby Lobby.
Reality,
You haven’t answered my question from 12:04am. I say an emphatic NO! What do you say?
“So, does that mean the government has the right to mandate the Amish to violate their religious convictions and force them to wire their homes and businesses for electricity?” – no. But it can mandate that the Amish can’t stop anyone who wants to instal electricity from doing so.
Your problem is Mary, that you keep expanding into more and more extraneous and irrelevant comparisons. You don’t seem to get the difference between being able to live by your own moral code and trying to force others to live by your moral code. The owners og Hobby Lobby aren’t being forced to use contraceptives, they are being prevented from stopping others from doing so.
joan 12:04am
Could you try to make this post a little more rational?
I’m not going to argue about non existent laws that you imagine being passed and what would happen if they were, when there is zero probablility of it.
Reality,
LOL, the Amish can’t stop someone else. Come on Reality, now you’re getting silly. A simple yes or no answers my original question Reality, so what is it?
How is Hobby Lobby stopping anyone from using contraception? Are they also stopping people from using toilet paper, soap, tampons, toothpaste and brushes, aspirin, jock itch powder, midol, etc. by not paying for it?
Nah, you’ve got it wrong Lrning. They aren’t being forced to violate their personal morals. They are being prevented from forcing their personal morals on others.
“A simple yes or no answers my original question Reality, so what is it?”
See this:
“So, does that mean the government has the right to mandate the Amish to violate their religious convictions and force them to wire their homes and businesses for electricity?” – no. But it can mandate that the Amish can’t stop anyone who wants to instal electricity from doing so.
See that little two letter word just after the quote? Do you?
“LOL, the Amish can’t stop someone else” – exactly. Neither can the owners of Hobby Lobby.
Employer: I would like to provide my employees with healthcare.
Employee: Oh, free emergency contraception! Awesome!
Employer: Wait, what? That’s not healthcare.
Employee: Yes it is!!! EC is healthcare!!! You need to pay for it.
Employer: How is EC healthcare??
Employee: Because I need it for my health.
Employer: I would say that food, shelter, and exercise are far more important and universally necessary for your health. Should I give you those, too?
Employee: Don’t be ridiculous!
Employer: OK so I’m not paying for your EC either.
Employee: Religious fascist!! You’re stopping me from getting EC!!
Employer: I am? Can’t you use some of your wages to buy EC?
Reality and Joan: NO, SHE CAN’T YOU RELIGIOUS FASCIST!!! What are you, obtuse?
Employer: What the heck?
Reality and Joan: Also the Amish need to pay for electricity for other people. If they don’t that means they are preventing others from using electricity.
Reality,
“So, does that mean the government has the right to mandate the Amish violate their religious convictions and force them to wire their homes and businesses for electricity?”-no.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for making my argument for me!
Oh and Reality, don’t lose any sleep over the Amish trying to stop you or anyone from installing electricity. These are people who want nothing more than to be left alone and in peace, to exercise their First Amendment right with no dictates from Emperor Obama. I’m glad you and I agree that is exactly what they, like all Americans, should be allowed to do.
Hi John,
A brilliant post.
“Thank you, thank you, thank you for making my argument for me! ” – he he, I think you misunderstand your own argument.
The Amish wouldn’t be forced to instal electricity in their homes. Hobby Lobby’s owners won’t be forced to use contraceptives.
Reality,
LOL
They are being prevented from forcing their personal morals on others.
Incorrect. The fringe benefits an employer offers (or doesn’t offer) to employees has no impact on the employees’ morals. However, being forced to offer immoral fringe benefits does have an impact on the employer.
Tut tut Lrning, we aren’t talking about ‘fringe benefits’. We are talking about legally mandated employee health care coverage. What if a Jehovah’s Witness employer refused to undertake the legally mandated employee health coverage because it included blood transfusions?
No one’s being forced to provide ‘immoral fringe benefits’ either.
What if a Jehovah’s Witness employer refused to undertake the legally mandated employee health coverage because it included blood transfusions?
They would be exercising their religious freedom in doing so and no doubt it would be taken to court. As I said, religious freedom isn’t absolute. The court would possibly rule against them, since courts have ruled that JW have had to allow their children to get blood transfusions. And, yes, employee health care coverage is a fringe benefit of employment. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html
“They aren’t being forced to violate their personal morals.”
I think your insistence about this is disingenuous. When JWs have been court-ordered to allow their children to receive blood transfusions, no one in their right mind would fail to recognize that those parents are being mandated to act against their conscience and faith. We don’t have to agree that blood transfusions are bad to acknowledge that. But the state had a compelling interest (saving the life of a child) in ordering the violation of religious exercise. IMO, no such compelling interest exists with the HHS mandate. And since several emergency injunctions have been granted with those courts acknowledging that the cases had a reasonable chance of success on their merits… perhaps this ridiculous mandate will soon be struck down.