Sunday, July 6, 2014

President Obama’s and top Democrats’ statements must resort to LIES against Supreme Court’s HOLLY LOBBY DECISION to have any arguments at all

Supreme Court Case did not address anybody's “rights” to use birth control, women’s rights to obtain abortion services or any employer’s rights to make any decisions about any employee’s health care decisions

In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case, the issue was about whether the government mandated insurance coverage that required a closely held company to provide a particular class of birth control/abortion coverage was an overly restrictive burden on religious belief and practice


The abbreviated statement about the Hobby Lobby case from  the Obama White House was as follows:

“Today, the Supreme Court ruled on the much-publicized Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. ***  This decision would allow some bosses to withhold contraceptive care from their employees' health coverage based on their own religious beliefs -- which their employees may not share. ***   At the top of today's press briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest delivered a statement about where the President stands on this ruling, noting: "President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them." [Obama quote in large-type bold italics]  ***  He went on to state that "today's decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies." (See “The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision”, by The White House Press Office, 6/30/14, The White House Blog
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision]).

The line, “This decision would allow some bosses to withhold contraceptive care from their employees' health coverage ...” is patently false. The most commonly used methods of birth control were not covered by the decision and specifically remain covered.

The President’s quote, “President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them...” does not address any holding of the Hobby Lobby decision. Nothing in the Hobby Lobby case was about “bosses” “making personal health care decisions” for “women.”

The full press conference by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, from which the statement above was derived, contained a series of questions and answers that were even more convoluted and problematic that what was quoted above (See “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 6/30/2014 ” by Josh Earnest, 6/30/14, The White House - Office of the Press Secretary [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-6302014]).

Democrats from Hillary Clinton on down all howled like herds of cats in heat. The former secretary of state and possible Democratic front-runner misrepresented the decision just like her former boss Barack Obama did, mere hours after the Supreme Court ruling. According to Hillary, for-profit employers don’t have to provide contraception coverage, mandated under Obamacare, if they have religious objections ( See “Hillary Clinton blasts Hobby Lobby ruling”  by Katie Glueck [with Maggie Haberman contributing], 6/30/14 [updated 7/2/14], Politico
[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-ruling-hillary-clinton-108460.html]).

Here’s what Hillary had to say, as reported by Politico:  “It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … [‘closely held’] employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that.... I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction....  “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,”

Everything after “which means...” is so completely wrong that it is fair to call it a lie; and to say that Hillary Clinton is as big a liar about the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision as Barack Obama..  Politico quoted another leading Democrat, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, essentially spouting the same kinds of lies.

1 comment:

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE “TEA PARTY CONGRESSMAN TELLING TRUTH TO POWER” EDITION

CONGRESSMAN LABRADOR TELLS HOST DAVID GREGORY “MEET THE PRESS” IS PERFECT SHOW FOR OBAMA OFFICIALS’ “MAKING STUFF UP”

The Daily Caller reports that “Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador got into a testy exchange on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” with host David Gregory over the issue of immigration reform and what to do with the thousands of unaccompanied children who have come to the U.S. illegally from Central America....” (See “Rep. Labrador Tells David Gregory ‘Meet The Press’ Is Perfect For Obama Officials ‘Making Stuff Up’ [VIDEO]” by Scott Greer. 7/6/14, Daily Caller [http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/06/rep-labrador-tells-david-gregory-meet-the-press-is-perfect-for-obama-officials-making-stuff-up-video/]). Before Labrador came on Meet The Press , Director of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was on the program to discuss the mass migration of unaccompanied minors across the Mexican border into the U.S.A.. What Johnson had to say prompted the congressman to suggest that “Meet the Press” needs to change its opening slogan.

After listening to the Jeh Johnson segment on Meet The Press, Labrador stated this to David Gregory: “I kept thinking that you need to change your slogan at the beginning of your show.... Instead of, ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press,’ it should be ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s another administration official making stuff up on Meet the Press.’ It’s really shameful.”

David Gregory was not pleased and started debating the issue with Congressman Labrador, who continued to make his points in spite of David Gregory’s badgering.