Di Gun Ban Fi. Barbara Bouncer Boxer. Jerry Moonbeam Brown. Talk about a hat trick. But wait. At least half of the D.C. Dumbell Duo from California has weighed in on the Hobby Lobby case. As reported by Breitbart News on Wednesday, Sen. Bouncer is offering this pearl of wisdom on the subject:
On the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the HHS mandate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) argued that Hobby Lobby’s position against abortion-inducing drugs is “anti-woman.” Boxer claimed that Hobby Lobby has never complained that Viagra is available for men under their health insurance coverage for employees.
As Right Scoop notes, though the MSNBC host observed to Boxer that Hobby Lobby’s objection has to do with issues about life, Boxer persisted, “Excuse me, I have never heard them put in any type of moral objection – remember this is a moral objection – to men getting Viagra. But they have a moral objection to women getting certain types of birth control.”
“So, I view this,” Boxer concluded, “as very much an anti-woman position to take.”
Yo, Babs: Last time I checked, Viagra isn’t an abortifacient. Translation for DemoLibs: a drug that kills preborn babies. Nor is it a contraceptive. Duh. Also, Holly Lobby isn’t banning or denying contraception to female employees. Guy Benson ably debunks this DemoLib myth in the Left’s Contraception Deceit:
Nobody is trying to “ban” contraceptives. What conservatives object to is the idea of the State coercing a relatively small number of religious employers to pay for other people’s contraception….
Indeed, Hobby Lobby — the Christian company at the center of today’s legal proceedings — already offers its employees access to 16 forms of birth control, including the pill. Being mandated to pay for a small handful of products considered by some to cause abortions, such as “Plan B,” was a bridge too far, hence the lawsuit.
Okay, Just for Fun:
• Is free (taxpayer-funded) access to contraception a constitutional right?
• If a female Hobby Lobby employee wants some form of contraception other than the 16 options available through her employer, why not chug over to the nearest drug store or Planned (taxpayer’s dime) Parenthood? Or work somewhere else?
• Where is forcing a private business owner to violate his/her conscience by government fiat enshrined in the Bill of Rights?
• Why does the Left always spin religious freedom into bigotry, discrimination or War on Women? (Hint: It’s the best they can do, since DemoLib policies and politics are as fruitful as the Atacama in August and they’re fresh out of Viagra.)
• Where are the grown-ups?
I reject the notion that refusing to supply abortion-inducing drugs on religious/moral grounds is “anti-woman.” What nonsense. Reducing women to Big Government is My Sugar Daddy serfs of the state whose sole focus is contraception or abortion access is about as patronizing – and anti-woman – as it gets.
Furthermore, the idea that female abortion activists like Baborama represent every woman on the planet simply because they’re female ranks right up there with Peter Pan and the Easter Bunny. And while the typical “pro-choice” mantra goes something like, “You’re a man. Shut up,” I kinda think the First Amendment is gender equal, and religious freedom still matters.
One last question: Yo, California: If you can’t find anything better to send to Sacramento and D.C. than this box of fruit loops, can you at least add some roughage?
Laura Levite: Keepin’ It Classy Hon, Or Just Auditioning for Bill Maher?
– and –
Minies, Men and Big Girl Boots: Martin Was Right