Contraceptive Worshippers Decry Fairness
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in two cases that could result in legal protection for the rights of employers not to be required by law to provide services that are in contradiction to the ethical standards of the employer. The services in question are contraception and early-day abortion pills, also known as morning-after pills.
The cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp v. Sebelius, present the court with a unique challenge. The court may choose to defend the practice of principled medicine or the court may choose to pander to the political whims of the corrupt medical establishment.
The mere suggestion that the court might exercise judicial restraint and uphold Constitutional principles is roiling those who consider contraception in the same category as the Holy Grail. The latest Supreme Court challenges to the Obama contraceptive mandate have become a flashpoint for rhetorical demagoguery intended to persuade the citizenry that birth control is a form of healthcare that no woman can live without.
Most recent is this comment from the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine:
In working with women to prevent unwanted pregnancy, physicians need the full panel of FDA-approved contraceptive methods. If that panel is limited by a woman’s inability to pay—if the method deemed optimal for her is unavailable because her health insurance does not cover it—then the religious freedom of her employer will have interfered with the provision of high-quality medical care to her. In this context, the welfare of the patient must trump the religious convictions of her employer. After all, it is the woman, not her employer, whose health is at risk.
Note the lead sentence, describing the preborn child as an “unwanted pregnancy.” This term signals two things—the denial that the child within is a human being and the suggestion that pregnancy is a treatable disease like chicken pox or the common cold. One would think that honesty could be expected of such a prestigious medical publication but, sadly, the truth is stranger than fiction.
Tell us, oh soothsayers of the diabolical, how it has come to pass that employers must be reined in, must toss sound ethical standards out the window, and must succumb to foolish mandates that have nothing to do with healthcare. What this law does is pave the road for Planned Parenthood with bricks of gold instead of clay—bricks fashioned with my tax dollars and yours. Taxpayer dollars that will be used to fund practices that endanger women’s health, kill the most vulnerable of our nation’s young, and destroy respectable management and employment ethics all in one fell swoop.
Planned Parenthood celebrates the Obama mandate because it suits its agenda—a new definition of healthcare that includes chemicals and devices that pollute the bodies of women, regardless of their age.
But the true story is one of corruption, disease, and death—and these are the real “benefits” of the Obama mandate.
Contraception corrupts the sensibilities of men and women to the point where sex without consequences replaces respect for human dignity. Contraception does not protect women from a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases. It does make the female body more hospitable to blood clots, cancer, and death.
What the Supreme Court should do, and is within the Constitutional principles of this nation to do, is defend and protect the citizenry—born and preborn—from the devastation of contraception and rule against the mandate once and for all.
Anything less is an affirmation of the religious doctrine of the culture of death—the holy grail of sex without responsibility.