SCOTUS lets the Greens (Hobby Lobby) redefine abortion based on their religious “beliefs” that preventing pregnancy IS abortion. That’s a little to the right of Attila the Hun, isn’t it?
The very specific list of birth control items to which they objected, “PlanB”, “Elle”, and “IUD’s” (rather generally) (an IUD incase you don’t/didn’t know, is an “Intra-Uterine Device” which comes in many shapes, some of the common ones are the “coil” a flat spiral with a long “tail” at one end, the “bowtie” a slightly rounded pair of triangles joined at one pair of corners so that it looks like a bow tie, but before I bore you with a long list …) these are placed (usually by a doctor) inside a woman’s uterus which wraps it in cells much like it might do with a fertilized egg, thus fooling the body into believing that it is already pregnant and almost never allowing another egg to attach itself to the uterus, thus avoiding a real pregnancy.
All of these methods of birth control (more accurately called “pregnancy prevention”) methods prevent a fertilized egg from every becoming embedded in a uterine wall to start a pregnancy. PlanB and Elle do so (to the best of my understanding, and I admit I am often wrong) by triggering the start of the shedding of the uterine lining, more commonly known as a “period” or menstruation, but no pregnancy ever existed. Birth control by pregnancy prevention is NOT abortion.
Neither the Supreme Court of the United States, nor certainly the “serious religious beliefs” of one family can change the medical definition of either “pregnancy” nor of “abortion”, regardless of what they think they are entitled to do. The long established meaning of those words is contained in every dictionary of the English language, plainly and clearly stated, and although language is a living thing that can change meanings, I don’t think all the publishers of dictionaries are going to look upon this as a great marketing opportunity.
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means two things to me, and to most Constitutional scholars, I understand. It means that I can practice your religion (even if that is atheism), and you can practice yours, but it does not give you the right to enforce your religious beliefs on me, or in any other way impinge on my religious freedom. Secondly it specifically prohibits the establishment of a national religion. It seems to me quite plain that SCOTUS has violated the constitution with this unjustified ruling no matter how narrowly this decision was intended by the Justices that it “should” to be construed. Nor is it a tiny step in the battle to overturn Roe v, Wade.
I won’t try to predict what form the next battle line will take, in the attempt to eliminate abortion (and even birth control) (as someone pointed out, the entire concurring majority of the SCOTUS opinion were elderly, Catholic, and hardly surprisingly, MEN) but I can assure you that it will take place as soon as the people who condone killing of doctors as a legitimate means of “saving” “lives” can arrange their troops, and their gangs of legal professionals. In fact, I don’t doubt that such a battle is already raging its way through the courts already. The good news today is that one federal court ruled that closing the last legal abortion facility in Mississippi was an “unusual” burden on the women of that state, and that it could not be closed because of that unreasonable burden of forcing Mississippi residents to travel to another state to seek a legal abortion.
It is hard, if not impossible, to remain dispassionate about this issue. It is possible to remain civil even in the face of the ill mannered, sometimes even violent opposition. However, we must remain so if we are to prevail in the long run.
Stafford “Doc” Williamson