http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/I can't count the times I've tried to explain that to someone, and they just keep reverting to the "no one is preventing them from going out and buying birth control.", " You don't deserve pills just because you think you're entitled ESPECIALLY if somebody else is paying for them for you." (actual quotes from someone) and "FREE birth control is not a right" arguments.
Meanwhile, women no longer have "equal protection under the constitution based on [their] gender", because "a corporation could decide to ignore medical science and make decisions about the healthcare of employees based on falsehoods"...
No mistake
Among the criticisms of the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is that it is “anti-science.” Specifically, many charge that the majority’s decision in favor of two companies that objected to paying for a handful of contraceptive methods lacked any scientific basis.
Although this charge is nowhere to be found in Justice Ginsburg’s forceful dissent, it has made the rounds among pundits. The Daily Beast‘s Sally Kohn decried the Court’s reliance on “bunk science” and The Nation‘s Reed Richardson claimed the Hobby Lobby majority’s opinion rested on “specious scientific claims.” “Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science,” reported Mother Jones, while another MoJo story ranked Hobby Lobby to be among the Supreme Court’s four “biggest science blunders.” And over at The Incidental Economist, Austin Frakt simply declared “The majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t get science.”
These critics are mistaken. There are reasonable arguments to be made against the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, but the charge that the decision is based on science fiction is not among them. The scientific soundness of a religious objector’s beliefs is not at issue in religious liberty cases and, even if it were, there was a reasonable (if not uncontroversial) basis for the specific factual claims upon which Hobby Lobby’s claim was based.
Among the criticisms of the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is that it is “anti-science.” Specifically, many charge that the majority’s decision in favor of two companies that objected to paying for a handful of contraceptive methods lacked any scientific basis.
Although this charge is nowhere to be found in Justice Ginsburg’s forceful dissent, it has made the rounds among pundits. The Daily Beast‘s Sally Kohn decried the Court’s reliance on “bunk science” and The Nation‘s Reed Richardson claimed the Hobby Lobby majority’s opinion rested on “specious scientific claims.” “Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science,” reported Mother Jones, while another MoJo story ranked Hobby Lobby to be among the Supreme Court’s four “biggest science blunders.” And over at The Incidental Economist, Austin Frakt simply declared “The majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t get science.”Stephanie Doty
These critics are mistaken. There are reasonable arguments to be made against the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, but the charge that the decision is based on science fiction is not among them. The scientific soundness of a religious objector’s beliefs is not at issue in religious liberty cases and, even if it were, there was a reasonable (if not uncontroversial) basis for the specific factual claims upon which Hobby Lobby’s claim was based.
Women’s Issues Matter
July 7, 2014
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
