Shockingly, anti-choicers revealed to be liars. Yet again.

I’m not such a purist about honesty that I refuse to tell even a little white lie to spare someone’s feeling or to extract myself out of an awkward social or professional situation. But I think I’m like most people in that when someone brazenly and compulsively lies to me about matters big and small I find it offensive, as well as insulting to my intelligence. It disinclines me to want to continue any kind of relationship with that person, even if they are a close friend or family member. Brazen compulsive liars are toxic and a drain. Life is too short for that shit.

But, for some reason, where the debate over women’s reproductive rights is concerned (and why the fuck is there one still?), those of us on the side of the radical notion that women are people who should have bodily autonomy are expected to engage politely with people who believe the opposite. Even when said people lie repeatedly. When they claim that abortion causes breast cancer and depression (lie). When they claim the morning after pill causes abortion (lie). When they claim they are passing onerous laws that (just so happen to) close all the clinics in a region out of a concern for women’s safety (lie). When they swear up and down they are not after birth control (big fat lie). Etc.

On that last one, we now have undeniable proof of how much anti-choicers are willing to lie and just how far up that goes.

Among the many questions raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is how sweeping its legacy will be. Supporters of the decision have insisted that the ruling is “narrow,” as it explicitly addresses “closely held” corporations objecting to four specific types of birth control—including IUDs and Plan B—because the business’ owners consider them (inaccurately) to cause abortion. Besides, the Court argued, the government can just fill any coverage gaps itself, and it’s only women whom corporations are now permitted to discriminate against. “Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate,” claimed Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employers’ religious beliefs.”

Bullshit, is essentially what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say about the majority’s claim to have issued a limited ruling. In her dissent, Ginsburg deemed it “a decision of startling breadth.” She noted that “‘closely held’ is not synonymous with ‘small’,” citing corporations like Cargill, which employs 140,000 workers. Even more alarming is the majority’s endorsement of the idea that corporations can hold religious beliefs that warrant protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In fact, it only took a day for the Court’s “narrow” decision to start to crack open. On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday.

In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all. The plaintiffs in all three cases are Catholics who own businesses in the Midwest, including Michigan-based organic food company Eden Foods. Meanwhile, the High Court declined to review petitions from the government seeking to overturn lower court rulings that upheld religiously based challenges to all preventative services under the mandate.

That’s right, five men sitting atop the mightiest legal edifice in the land lied right to all of our faces. Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew it. I knew it. You knew it. Oh, but so many anti-choicers yammered “it’s only the abortifacients!” oh-so-mansplainingly at us right after the ruling. And even when presented with the new development about the decision, said anti-choicers continue to spout “only four kinds!”, unabated. That’s because they’re compulsive liars, and will stick to their lies even in the face of directly contradicting information. Which is why there’s no point in trying to persuade them, or work with them, or compromise. They need to be cut out of our lives.

Now, as for all the centrist, appeasing, mealy mouthed ass-kissers, they can line right up to apologize to us for scoffing when we said they were after birth control, though I’ll settle for them just knocking off the pious lecturing.


Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “Shockingly, anti-choicers revealed to be liars. Yet again.”

  1. It got worse yesterday.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    “In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

    The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

    The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.”

  2. There is even another overlooked ‘joker in the deck.’ The decision specifically gives religious organizations the right to object to certain means of contraception as abortifacients even though they are — as stated in the decision — no such thing.

    In other words, religious arguments must be accepted even when provably false.

    How, given this as a stated principle, can laws against the teaching of creationism stand?

    (It is probably too steep a slope — so far — to remind people that the image of “Jews as Christ-Killers” is part of many religious belief-structures. And there are other interesting side effects. Afaik, Rastafarians — with an R, not a P — believe that marijuana has religious and spiritual benefits. Whether this is true or not — I believe it has many benefits, but would not include religious ones — would not a Rastafarian selling marijuana be, legitimately, considered to be advancing and spreading his own religion — and expressing his own free speech? Perhaps an individual could not take advantage of this exemption, but imagine a Rastafarian setting up a corporation in a ‘recreational use state’ and then demanding to be allowed to sell in all states, based on Hobby Lobby.)

Comments are closed.