By Nathan Barton

On  the last day of June, the US Supreme Court, the Nine Nazgul, in a 5-4 decision, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and three other closely-held corporations, which challenged the ObummerCare mandate that all firms (and institutions) with more than 50 employees provide ALL types of “contraception” INCLUDING abortion, to women “without charge” – that is, that it be part of the basic package of MANDATED health insurance with no co-pay, no deductible, no strings or cost TO THE INSURED beyond their “normal” insurance premium.

The argument that the Nazgul chose was that the mandate violated the Freedom of Religion Restoration Act, which prohibits federal laws and actions which prevent individuals from exercising their religion (1st Amendment rights).  Apparently, the argument was not that ObummerCare violated the First Amendment (though it clearly does – to everyone except (a) judges, (b) lawyers, and (c) Tranzis).  Several people have pointed out that Hobby Lobby wins! “And so does religious freedom.”  THAT remains to be seen.  At the same time, the ruling has created a firestorm of anger, protest, and threats, such as can be found here. Indeed, the reaction has been far more than just penning editorials condemning the five Nazgul, the plantiffs, and anyone who has any religious beliefs which they practice.

Actually, those opposed to the decision (and to allowing ANYone to decide whether or not their money can be used for things that they bitterly oppose and believe to be evil) have publicly declared their contempt, distain, and hatred for Hobby Lobby and the others by making threats to burn down stores, kill owners and employees, and have public sex in the stores.

Incredible claims are made that women employees of HL and the other businesses will no longer have access to birth control, a clear and obvious lie and a refusal to even read the flawed Nazgul decision.  But obviously heard and believed by too many rather stupid people.  Such as one member of Congress who wants “free” contraception for all women. (Free as in “taxpayers will pay for it” like “free tuition” and “free food (stamps)” and such other scams.)  Of course, this is nothing new: we’ve heard the same sort of lies and fantasies and accusations about virtually EVERY part of life:  public schools, food stamps, global warming, unemployment benefits, GMO foods, ending slavery, ending segregation, raising speed limits, restricting gun sales, and everything else.

It should get old, but for the true believers in transnational progressivism and socialism and the worshippers of the god called “the State,” it never does.  For these people, claims about the dignity and sanctity of human life is nothing but eyewash for their agenda: they do not consider MOST of us to really be humans:  just animals and objects/targets of their lust for power and wealth.

The repercussions of the decision, flawed though it is, are already happening:  Federal judges are already issuing injunctions for various organizations to keep them from being punished by the ObummerCare bureaucrats (and the IRS).

All the usual suspects came out against the decision, claiming that the Nazgul are biased towards evil corporate owners and bosses, and that women’s rights are being violated. At the same time, Reid, Pelosi and others have vowed to pass legislation that will work around the decision (with the Fuehrer’s help, of course, and assuming he can’t just issue an Imperial Decree (“executive order”), and force everyone to play (AND pay)!  Pelosi claimed that the decision is “a gross violation of workers’ religious rights.” Really!  One of the major themes is that the Nazgul believe that corporations have rights and those rights trump the rights of real people.

As I’ve said several times, the decision is flawed, typical of so many US Supreme Court decisions, for whatever reasons.  The corporation argument is NOT one of the flaws, as the decision clearly explains that close-held corporations are intimately tied to the families (or closeknit friends and associates) who own them, and that the ruling does NOT apply to publicly-held corporations.  But what are the flaws?

First, the ruling is inconsistent with other, equally serious thefts of liberty:  the real infringement of workers’ religious rights is that when they are employed by public corporations (or non-religious non-profits) they can be and ARE forced to pay for things that are very much against their deeply held religious beliefs, and their other rights as supposedly protected by the Constitutions.  For example, there are many Americans who believe that medical (and other) insurance is sinful because it is a form of gambling, but no matter how deeply they believe this, local, state and federal governments force them to buy those products directly and indirectly, with the threat of punishment if they do not.

Secondly, the ruling applies only to certain TYPES of contraception and abortion.  So Catholics (and Catholic institutions) in particular (and other religious people as well) who believe that ANY contraception is sinful are STILL forced to violate their consciences.

Thirdly, and more generally, the Nazgul once more assert that they have the power to dictate or allow things that are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, apparently just because “they can.”

Fourthly, the ruling is based on statute, and NOT as it should have been, on clear Constitutional grounds.  Religious freedom is supposed to be protected by the 1st (and 2nd) Amendment, NOT by the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which was passed to clarify HOW the federal government had to behave to stop stealing that particular type of liberty.  But that law could be repealed as soon as January (or with enough bribes, tomorrow).  (I and others find it sickening that Hillary is now opposed to a law which her husband and she worked to get passed when he was in office: apparently peyote and orange robes are okay to protect, but NOT someone’s idea that to kill a baby is wrong.)

Fifthly, the fact that only five of the nine could see their way to protect innocent, unborn life (as in “life and liberty” as essential human rights), and that one of those five pointed out that “the government could pay for it” and avoid taking anyone’s rights away (i.e., ignoring that the very same taxpayers, like the owners of Hobby Lobby, would STILL be forced to pay for things that they believe are evil).

I know that many people who believe that they are lovers of liberty will attack me for these things. But if there is ANY excuse for government – mandatory human government of ANY sort – to exist, it is the protection of the rights (liberties, freedom) of the people served (and not for lunch) by that government.  And there is NO more fundamental right than the right to LIVE.  Yet this government system (a federal government, fifty state governments, and many more) not only refuses to protect life, but is actively and daily involved with killing millions, at home and abroad, claiming that the rights of a few outweigh the rights of others – often many others.  No woman can have a “right” to an abortion (or even to contraception) any more than you or I can have a right to “a good job” or food or good health or freedom from fear.

“Rights” like these are possible only if someone else has their rights taken away, whether it is the taxpayer or the employer or the doctor/nurse forced to pay or provide services against their will, or the infant forced – yes, FORCED – to die for the convenience of another.  How on earth liberals (and too many lovers of liberty) can demand on the one hand that the FedGov STOP killing foreigners abroad but INCREASE the killing of children at home is beyond me.

Mama’s Note: Since everyone has the same natural, inalienable authority over their lives and bodies, the court’s ruling is beside the point if people want to talk about “rights.” This “ruling” has little or nothing to do with those “rights” in the long run because the court continues to pretend that it can grant rights and power to some people and not others, and always at someone else’s expense.

The three women on the court were the dissenting votes, for some strange reason.

Butler Shaffer said: Perhaps Justice Ginsburg is sensing what those of us outside the political power structure have become aware, namely, that increasing millions of men and women have grown weary of the violent, destructive, thieving, and tyrannical nature of what America has become.

I think those in the “power structure” are definitely becoming aware of that, and they are fearful. Fear, of course, makes them all the more dangerous.