it's probably not a good thing to start off an article implying that the five conservative justices on the highest court in the land are not very bright, but I can draw no other conclusion from the recent Hobby Lobby decision. There are glaring inconsistencies, as well as outright hypocrisy, factual inaccuracies, and in the final result, only a semantic difference between how the owners would have in some distant way been connected to an employee who uses the contraception method they disagree with, and how that same owner will be connected to their employees under the new rules defined in the SCOTUS decision. The difference is almost laughable and in the end changes absolutely nothing. So let me explain further...
It goes without saying that their are extreme idealogues on both sides of the political spectrum. but the truth is the far right has cornered the market on extreme religious persecution whining. the case is also a far too common example of why so many have lost faith not only in religion but in religious people. It's because to those of us on the outside, we see nothing but misinformation, lies, hypocrisy, and mainly a lack of consistency that always comes across at least to me as extremely disingenuous.
nothing illustrates this more then the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. It is an almost perfectly tailored example of why so many people mistrust religious arguments like this.
Let's break down some of the inconsistencies in this case of which there are a plethora. the first most obvious one is the often reported story from mother Jones about how hobby lobby invests in pharmaceutical companies that make the exact drugs named in the lawsuit that they are so morally opposed to that they can't even be affiliated with them in a roundabout way, such as whether or not employee would wish to use one. now I don't wanna tell anyone how to practice their religion... Like a company overruling the religion of its employees by telling them what they have to do, but if you are going to oppose contraception on moral grounds then you better make sure it doesn't look like you don't have a problem affiliating with those same products if it makes you money. That seems like simple common sense. And it comes across as extreme hypocrisy. more accurately it makes it look like your position from the very beginning was a lie. Something your God took the time to write on a pair of stones in person. He didn't mention anything about plan B or abortion on the Ten Commandments but he did mention lying. Something to think about.
the next glaring inconsistency is that Hobby Lobby still pays for mens reproductive procedures such as a vasectomy. Now this might seem like a stretch, but I have to say I come down in agreement on this one. I don't think it's an equivalent analogy to compare it to something like Viagra, because that's not a contraceptive. But I do agree with the comparison about vasectomy. that is a procedure that prevents a man from fertilizing an egg. That is no different than the morning after pill. the problem with this argument is it involves science. It involves facts. Facts many of us find are often very hard to argue with to religious people. When someone believes fervently in something there is no evidence for they can very easily dismiss your argument no matter how many facts are in it.
the next problem is simply stated, facts. It ties into the last inconsistency. The morning after pill does not abort a baby. a fertilized egg is not a baby. I know that goes against most people's gut reactions and basic understanding of making a baby, but it's accurate. women have fertilized eggs all the time. Some studies say as many as two thirds of all fertilized eggs are expelled from the body. The reason they don't become babies is because they can only become babies if they attach to the wall of the uterus. religious people, or more correctly I should state some religious people believe as soon as an egg is fertilized is the moment of conception. That is not a difference of opinion from science, it is flatly wrong. That's like saying my religion says one plus one equals 5. No matter the preponderance of evidence, some people will continue to believe that regardless of the fact that is wrong. And can be proven wrong. No fertilized egg can become a baby in a woman if it does not implant in the uterus. Many fertilized eggs don't implant and are flushed out off the woman's body. So to their way of thinking women abort babies every single day without drugs. That's all women. Even the faithful ones. Not just the liberal heathens. if something can never ever be a baby, then it's not a person yet. If the final step is to implant in the uterus, everything before that can't be defined as the moment of conception. In the same way that a single sperm can't be a baby. Or just an egg can't be a baby. Neither of those things alone can develop into a baby, ever, under any circumstance. to get the process started, a woman makes an egg and a man creates sperm. That's not a baby... yet. then they have to join which now creates a fertilized egg, which is the next step but still doesn't create a baby. Finally the fertilized egg has to implant in the uterus. That is the only time a fertilized egg will develop into a baby. These are facts. And facts are really really important when people are making decisions about other people's health.
back to the Christian values of the Hobby Lobby owners. They also import a vast majority of their products from China. China forces women to have abortions. This is a huge moral inconsistency. Why do they affiliate themselves with a country that is so obviously against all their principles. It looks so bad when supposedly morally superior individuals push aside their religious objections when it makes them money, by getting cheaper goods, but holds fast to those Christian values when it saves them money or just allows them to impose their views on employees who have their own religious ideas. either you reject something on moral grounds completely and all things that affiliate with it, or no one will take your argument seriously.
the last point I want to make is in reference to the title of this post. It means this entire decision to object to contraception or be affiliated to it through their employees by the owners, and the ridiculous decision by the Supreme Courts conservative justices who are supposed to be intelligent, has led to the exact same situation. Nothing has been changed by this decision. The employers of Hobby Lobby will still pay for their employees contraception. They will also pay for actual abortions. They argued that they don't even want to be affiliated with the process by which their insurance company would pay for contraception for employees. Even that relative distant affiliation with the process was too disgusting for them. they say that they are not overriding the religious rights of their employees, because those employees can still pay for those things out of pocket. Interesting. Does anyone else see where this is going? The complete irony and frankly stupidity of this entire argument and Supreme Court decision is that the owners of Hobby Lobby are still going to pay for these things. Hobby Lobby pays its employees money. Hourly wages or salaries. The employees use that money that the owners pay them, to then go out and buy plan B. Or perhaps another contraception device, or in some circumstances perhaps an abortion. The individual pays for those things with the money they got from Hobby Lobby. So the employers are still going to pay for these things through the money they pay to employees, just like the money they would pay to them through insurance. The only way Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court don't look like complete fools, is if they do not affiliate in anyway with anyone associated with these contraceptive devices. And only if they would go the extra step to not hire or employ anyone who isn't like them religiously and might use the funds paid to them to have an abortion or use these contraceptive methods they disapprove of. But that would be ridiculous, and discriminatory, therefore illegal. It reaffirms to me more than anything how far the Supreme Court has fallen in terms of factual judicial review.