by exploited » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:18 pm
Haven't had a chance to read much of the ruling yet, but it seems to be a series of really massive leaps in logic, coupled with a juvenile and incomplete understanding of the science behind these contraceptives.
First off, these contraceptives do not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Instead, they delay ovulation, which takes place prior to fertilization. So the argument that these contraceptives are in anyway similar to abortion is total, objective nonsense. The only people silly enough to spew it are the same people silly enough to deny global warming or evolution - the John Galts of the world. Some of these people happen to sit on the Supreme Court.
Second, the ruling applies to corporations that are run on "religious principles." This is a sloppy and hilariously vague idea, one that doesn't really say much of anything. What does it mean to be run according to "religious principles?" These companies will continue to provide contraception, and so the idea that one of their religious principles is to be opposed to contraception is obviously false. And because the egg is never fertilized, there is no actual difference between the contraceptives they do provide and the contraceptives they don't. So how exactly are they running on "religious principles," when in fact they are in all ways indistinguishable from "secular" corporations?
Third, they don't seem to give a shit about other religious objections, despite being just as important to their practitioners as this contraceptive dispute is to Hobby Lobby.