Hi Sam,
I appreciate your thinking about and commenting on what you feel is the left’s reaction to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. It’s good that, even when folks see things differently, they can still talk about their points of view with respect and openness.

I’ve thought about the case a lot, but also thought about how this 5/4 Court has ruled on a number of cases. While you and I may simply be coming from very different places, and yes, I am opinionated, I like to think that I don’t just “shoot from the hip” or that I’m an extremist; even when I feel strongly about issues, I think that facts matter.

The article you referred me to in the National Review had a certain hostile tone that made it difficult to take seriously. It didn’t engender a lot of openness on my part, starting with “The Left is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision” and continued with “This is not just garbage. It’s an entire landfill on stilts.” Hyperbole, much? There are more than a few other straw man arguments – putting words and ideas in the mouths of pro-choicers that are ugly, incendiary, and non-representative.

So, I’ll just get to the points. Interestingly, I’ve read that Hobby Lobby paid for coverage of all 20 types of contraception prior to filing this case. One point the article makes is that the 4 out of 20 forms of contraceptive were singled out because they were abortifacients. They are NOT. Hobby Lobby “feels” that they are. However, the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) of the National Institute of Health reports that IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients. Hobby Lobby does not represent the thinking of science in this matter. Sadly, the right-wing regressives in this Court allowed for a religious definition of medical facts, not a scientific one! Political ideology, anyone?

The owners of Hobby Lobby are not doctors. They are not scientists. They are not ministers. They are employers. Their “mission” is to deal in products, services, and profits.

Additionally, the Greens, owners of Hobby Lobby, have a 401(k) employee retirement plan with over $70 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, AND DRUGS OFTEN USED IN ABORTIONS. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). They had no option to invest elsewhere? Some wonder if the owners have mostly a strong religious belief in earning their profits wherever they can. This egregious hypocrisy should have been a factor in the court case; I don't know why it wasn't. Will authentically religious Christians scream about it, or boycott them because of it? Doubtful.

Even if they WERE correct on the scientific merits (of abortifacients), the decision is still a slippery slope, recklessly decided. Once the Court allows the intrusion of the employer into alleged religious objections, we will see (we are already seeing!) companies which will religiously object to ALL forms of birth control, the hiring of the LGBT community, or Muslims, or any group with which they have an issue. See http://talkingpoints...t-hiring-hobby-lobby
They won’t even have to prove their sincerity! Groups could use a religious dodge as a cover for their monetary interests, to skirt civil rights laws, or to impose other forms of social control, if they can invoke religious imperative. Other businesses may wish to impose other restrictions on coverage based of their religious beliefs: no transfusions for Jehovah’s Witness? No anti-depressants for Scientologist companies? The religion of an individual should be freely practiced; it should not be imposed by the individual on others.

On another point, family planning, whether contraception, vasectomy, tubal ligation, morning after or emergency contraception, or termination of pregnancy, encompasses options which are both MEDICAL and LEGAL. Employees don’t get “free” birth control or medical care handed to them by the employer; employees pay for it, and health insurance coverage is one of several benefits as part of a package workers EARN, like vacation time, pensions, etc. HIPPA laws also should protect the patient’s privacy from anyone who is not their doctor; the employer has no business in the doctor’s office or the record room!

The owners of Hobby Lobby are either a for profit business (which they ARE), and are subject to offering their employees the benefits they’ve earned, or they are a church – a “for PROPHET”, if you will. I would understand a church not wanting to include some of these benefits in their package. But they are not a church. They do not have a place in controlling either the private lives or medical decisions of their employees. In her dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the point that “"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

Another point: some of us are profoundly concerned that the Court would give religious rights to a corporation which would trump the rights of workers. No matter how devout the Greens might be (and whether they are or not is moot), the rights of their “personhood”, that of religious freedom has been gifted to the corporation, while being taken from the employees. This Court has given supremacy to the corporation over workers. Interestingly, on the same day, they gave no such standing to unions when they allowed family caregivers who get union benefits to opt out of union dues.

It will be a better day for us all when we have single-payer health care, so that doctor-patient relationships will not be intruded upon by outside forces. I still remember with horror how members of Congress and Jeb Bush involved themselves with brain-dead Terry Schiavo’s medical situation, despite her husband’s legal authority. It will also be a better day when Citizens United is overturned, and when corporations find their proper, more humble, place in the life of this nation.