Most of the arguments I’ve been seeing on Twitter in favor of the HHS Mandate and against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties betray an extreme misunderstanding of the issues involved. What the Supreme Court is deciding, in the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius cases are whether the rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their religious convictions are Constitutionally protected.
Now obviously, whether or not a business chooses to pay for an employee’s contraception needs, contraception is inexpensive and widely available. An employee’s access to the pill is not contingent upon whether or not their insurance covers it.
It’s hard to tell if these leftists are being purposefully deceptive or are just seriously obtuse – see if any of this makes sense to you.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 25, 2014
— Pokey Lokey (@PokeyLokey) March 25, 2014
— Zack Zack (@smrzle) March 25, 2014
— SEIU (@SEIU) March 25, 2014
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) March 25, 2014
The choice about whether or not to use birth control should be between a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.#NotMyBossBusiness
— Young Democrats (@youngdems) March 25, 2014
— Army Vet Chic (@habitual_grump) March 25, 2014
For a palette cleanser, see Gabriel Malor at AoSHQ: Reviewing The Legal Arguments In The Contraception Mandate Cases