About That Birth Control Restriction

 

Nobody is restricting access to birth control
Lauren Briggs

Within moments of the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case, my Facebook page lit up with exclamations of glee, anger, victory and outrage. The rhetoric was so high from all corners, that I decided to delve a little deeper for my own discovery. I started with the definition of the word contraception. It’s origin goes back to the late 19th century from “contra” meaning “against” and “ception” which is a shortened form of conception, or “against conception.”

The Oxford Dictionary defines contraception as: the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy.

Merriam-Webster uses a similar definition: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.
Hillary Clinton’s response to the ruling declared it “a setback for women’s health, denying women the right to contraceptives as a part of a health care plan.” She added, “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk…who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

The Supreme Court decision does not deny women access to contraceptives, as Hillary Clinton would lead us to believe.

There are 20 different contraceptive prescriptions, only four of which did Hobby Lobby object to. Those four include the “morning after pill” which is designed to prevent the implanting of a fertilized egg. The four are “abortion related drugs.” Drugs that terminate an already fertilized egg.

Hobby Lobby never objected to covering birth control. It only objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don’t prevent a pregnancy, but terminate one.

This decision does not prevent women from accessing those four prescriptions, only that their employer can not be required to provide (pay for) those four. Hobby Lobby has willingly and will continue to provide the 16 or 80% of the 20 available forms of contraception. No woman is being denied access to any means of preventing conception, only a method or medicine that would in fact abort an existing fertilized egg.

I do not believe this is a Republican or Democratic issue. I do not see it as a War on Women. But I do see it as an example of government overreach, about protecting the First Amendment and religious freedom.

Charles Krauthammer said the real significance of the ruling is the court’s affirmation that, as the government expands, it is encroaching upon religious freedom. “Even when…[the government is] doing stuff unintentionally, has no intention of impinging on religious practice, it will inevitably.” He added, “Especially if you’re going to control a sixth of the economy in the most intimate interaction a citizen has, which is healthcare.”

Another interesting facet to this discussion is that there is no Obamacare contraception mandate. This issue was not covered in the Obamacare Law that was voted on by congress, but instead is a regulation added later by the Department of Health and Human Services. The 2009-10 Congress never debated the question of whether companies can be forced to provide such coverage. The HHS simply asserted they could impose such a requirement. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review said, “Several pro-life Democrats who provided the law’s narrow margin of victory in the House have said they would have voted against the law had it included the mandate.

I am in agreement with the Supreme Court decision, but I must admit, I do not feel it is time for celebration and rejoicing. I realize it was a narrow 5-4 ruling. That means that four members of the Supreme Court of the United States did not find this a First Amendment issue and for that I am gravely concerned. I also find it ironic that this ruling was based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The pro-abortion-rights lobby argues that “abortion” and “birth control” are synonymous terms, but that doesn’t make it true.

To those who believe that life begins at the time of conception, it is a huge difference.

Lauren Briggs is the president of the Redlands Republican Women’s Club. She can be reached at laurenbrgs@aol.com.

Breitbart: Radical Left ‘Catholics for Obama’ Push Alinsky ‘Social Justice’ Ideology

They have been around for sometime and they won’t be going away soon. Ever hear of them, or experience them or their antics?  You have, whether you know it or not.  Your President uses them and they use him:

From Breitbart and Michael Patrick Leahy

On Monday, two days after Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan, a pro-life Catholic as his Vice Presidential running mate, the Obama campaign announced the leadership team for the 2012 version of “Catholics for Obama.”  The group  is dominated by radical left wing intellectuals and politicians who promote the “social justice” ideology of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is an organization founded in 1969 with the help of Chicago’s Saul Alinsky, the original “community organizer.” Its members are not typical of the Catholic congregations in America. Instead, they are academics at Catholic universities, nominally Catholic pro-abortion legislators, and labor leaders.

Do we mean to say, Catholics are not united in main doctrine and leadership?  Exactly, if we are to take what we see and hear from this piece, from the piece we mentioned above and much more:

As Matthew Arnold wrote earlier this week at the Cardinal Newman Society blog:

Relying heavily on left-leaning academics at Catholic colleges and universities, the Obama campaign on Monday unveiled its “Catholics for Obama” team for 2012 in an effort to boost its Catholic vote.

Among those leading the group are several pro-abortion rights politicians along with faculty members at Catholic colleges including Sister Jamie Phelps, director of the Institute for Black Catholic Studies at Xavier University in New Orleans; Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer who teaches at the Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh; Thomas Groome of Boston College, a theologian; and Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America.

Not your general run-of-the mill peace loving proponents of infant life and well-being of the Catholic flock:

Cafardi just last week took to the pages of the National Catholic Reporter to convince readers that Obama was more pro-life than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He didn’t mention in that piece that he would soon be publicly affiliated with the Catholics for Obama group. Presumably, that affiliation will be pointed out in future writings.

Schneck is on the board of directors of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which was co-founded by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ director of faith-based programs, Alexia Kelley, to generate Catholic support for President Obama’s policies. Last year Schneck led a faculty effort to embarrass Republican House Speaker John Boehner, when he delivered the commencement address at The Catholic University of America. In February Schneck joined with other politically liberal Catholics in an open letter “celebrating” the “accommodation” proposed by President Obama with regard to the HHS contraceptive mandate — a compromise that the U.S. bishops have explained is entirely unacceptable to Catholics, and which has still not been written into the regulations.

Other members of Obama’s 21-member team includes Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward Kennedy who was uninvited by a Catholic college at the request of the local bishop in May, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who pushed for that state’s law legalizing gay marriage.

It all looks and smells like a sour, rotten potpourri of lying politicians and misguided socialist academics and others watering at the trough of government largess.

Just as it did in 2008, the group apparently intends to ignore President Obama’s long history of support for pro-abortion policies (most notably his support for late term abortions while a member of the Illinois State Senate) and attack Ryan from what it considers the “moral high ground” of “social justice” ideology. As Lifenews.com reported earlier this week:

During the 2008 presidential election, a Catholics for Obama effort led by Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec apologized for then candidate Barack Obama’s pro-abortion record. Now, a new group of Catholic professors are leading a new effort to get the pro-abortion activist re-elected.

Kmiec, the former Malta ambassador who resigned from his position after he was found to be derelict in his duties, will not be leading the charge. . .

The outreach page for the new pro-Obama group says nothing of his pro-abortion record.

Deal Hudson, president of the Pennsylvania Catholics’ Network, made the argument at theDaily Beast after the Ryan announcement that Obama’s strategy in the 2012 Presidential campaign among Catholics will be to pit “social justice” Catholics against traditional Catholics:

You may have failed to understand VP Biden enjoys a reputation as a “social justice,” Catholic, what with all his lying and caterwauling about and against his conservative opponents … there he is, Mr. Izzy Idiotic, showing his butt through lame attempts at humor.  We’ll wrap this up and hope the reader will seek to understand the lies Obama and his bunch throw to the pack of dogs eager to follow him and his socialist buddies.

Biden is a “social justice” Catholic who claims to know how to connect with blue-collar Democratic Catholics, like those in his hometown of Scranton, Pa. During four of his last five years in the Senate, he received a 100 percent rating from NARAL. As vice president he supported federal funding for abortion, despite voicing opposition to it in 2008, and the Health and Human Services mandate requiring Catholic institutions serving the public to provide insurance coverage for contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization.

During the 2008 campaign, some of Biden’s remarks on NBC’s Meet the Press defending his position on abortion were publicly criticized by Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wis., and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, then of Denver, now of Philadelphia. Morlino’s diocese, by the way, includes Paul Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wis…

Since being elected to the House in 1998, Ryan has developed a solid reputation with the grassroots as a pro-life, pro-marriage Catholic, and among Tea Party and fiscal conservatives, he has attained hero status for his extraordinary grasp of economic and budgetary issues. At age 42, Congressman Ryan is now often referred to as the “intellectual leader” of the Republican Party, a description repeated by Mitt Romney in announcing his VP choice…

While the choice of Ryan will please the Tea Party as well as fiscal  and social conservatives, it creates an opening for the Catholic supporters of Obama… Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, [a member of Catholics for Obama 2012] who after underscoring her Italian, Catholic upbringing charged:

“The Ryan budget does not address debt nor fiscal responsibility. What it does is take care of the very wealthy at the risk of the middle class and people who are poor. That is contrary to Catholic teaching.”

Ryan argued that as a Catholic he was justified in taking into account the bigger picture of the entire economic situation facing the nation. He argued there was a moral obligation “implicit” in Catholic social teaching to address “difficult basic problems before they explode into social crisis.”

It should come as little surprise that President Obama, the “great unifier,” will now apply the tactics of division and envy that have characterized his campaign to the entire population specifically to the Catholic community.  The ideological imprint of Saul Alinsky, the modern promoter of divisive class warfare techniques, is all over Barack Obama’s early career. During his community organizing days, Obama was employed by a non-profit organization known as the Calumet Christian Conference, which received much of its funding from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Most conservatives anticipate a steady onslaught of “social justice” class warfare attacks on Romney and Ryan from the Alinsky influenced “Catholics for Obama” for the remainder of the campaign.

Michael Patrick Leahy is a Breitbart News contributor, Editor of Broadside Books’ Voices of the Tea Party e-book series, and author of  Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement.

Related articles