Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hillary Clinton Hysterical on Hobby Lobby

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I’m going to make a bit of a liar out of myself by not ignoring the Hobby Lobby case entirely - as I previously suggested we all do - although I am still entirely of the opinion that the decision:

  • is unlikely to affect any of our lives,
  • is unlikely to affect the lives in anyone we know, and
  • is unlikely, in any event, to significantly affect the small number of women who choose to: 1) work for a few private company with a sincerely held religious belief against contraception; 2) use that employer’s health care plan; and 3) use contraceptives.

In fact, it’s not so much the irrelevant Hobby Lobby case I want to address (here’s an idea – don’t work for Hobby Lobby – catastrophe averted) as the hysterical nonsense the woman who will likely be our next president is pushing on the subject:


(Admin please embed - I can't figure out how to embed a video on this forum for the life of me)--> {media}url{/media} using [...]url[/...] (Special BBCode icon--> left of font drop-down)





“The corporation’s employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”


Hobby Lobby is not imposing its religious beliefs on its employees. It allows people of any faith to work in its stores on an equal basis and practice their religions as they see fit. It is allowing employees to purchase and use contraceptives. It simply refuses to pay for them.


“[Women] are often the canaries in the mine. You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights. Some of them never have them. Some of them lose them. And among those rights is control over their bodies. Control over their own healthcare.”


If anybody lost control over their own healthcare, it is only because the Affordable Care Act has imposed exchanges and mandates – the only reason this became a court case in the first place. There is nothing women are being prevented from doing to their own bodies, and they remain free to purchase any health care services or insurance they wish (besides what government has prohibited or driven out of business).


“It is a disturbing trend that you see in many societies that are very unstable, anti-Democratic, and frankly, prone to extremism, where women and women’s bodies are used as a defining and unifying issue to bring together people – men – to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them, because of their religion, their sex, their tribe, whatever.”


What “trend”? This single case recognizes an extremely narrow religious exemption for employer-provided health insurance plans. Hobby Lobby choosing not to fund contraception sends the United States down a path of Wahhabi savagery against women?


“We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s a hard choice. And it’s controversial.”




“And that’s why I’m pro-choice. Because I want people to make their own choices.”


Not so hard a controversy to resolve after all. Except she hasn’t correctly identified the controversy at all, which instead focuses on to what extent human rights apply to the early stages of our development.


“I know it’s a spectrum, but all these kinds of decisions about women’s rights, and women’s bodies, and women’s roles are on that spectrum. Thankfully, we’re far away from a lot of countries that don’t even issue birth certificates to girls because they’re so worthless, why record their births? So we’re very far from that. But this kind of decision raises serious questions.”


True, we are nowhere near that point on the “spectrum.” So why make a comparison that she admits is not even remotely proportional? Because that is the outrageous false equivalency she wants to stick in the mind of her audience.


“I think there are a lot of interesting questions. But before we get to the interesting questions, I think that there should be a real outcry against this kind of decision.”


Outcry first, ask questions later. That’s putting the horse squarely in front of the cart.


“Many more companies will claim religious beliefs.”


How many companies are likely to falsely espouse a religion just to take advantage of a narrow insurance exception? Even if there were such a company, isn’t this why we have juries, to find such facts and render verdicts based on what strains credibility and what is most likely?


We should expect more from a presidential candidate and trained attorney than such blatant pandering to social identity groups with uninformed and exaggerated analysis. Even as the case has very little practical effect on anyone, it’s unfortunate that progressives have successfully hijacked yet another social cause to divide and conquer the American citizenry.


Source: The New Versailles Blog

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...