Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Eight Big Lies

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been in the business of defending the crazy left for so long it must just be second nature now. Mother Jones wrote up a piece with the 8 best lines from her dissent in Burwell. Here they are with the obvious refutation that Ginsburg chose to ignore in favor of her liberal ideology.

• Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, “in a decision of startling breadth,” would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
  • The majority clearly held this applied to “closely held” or private corporations only, not EVERY corporation. So Ginsburg immediately weakens her case by making her statements broad. Second, as the majority said, you cannot find that a company owned by individuals is a corporation for purposes of applying mandates, but simultaneously has no protections because it is comprised of individuals, not a company. It simply defies logic. The majority found HHS’ argument that it had no standing to be without merit if you assume that a non-profit entity has such protections. The profit motive is not sufficient to deny rights to one collective of individuals that is given to another collective of individuals. Basically, that amounts to a due process violation.   
• “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
  • No, it wouldn’t… in any way. It would deny them access to a specific type of contraception unless the government allowed access through a less restrictive avenue – which it has already had to do for churches. The majority even went so far as to suggest two ways the government could do that legally so the mindless bureaucrats don’t even need to think too hard.
• “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.”
  • Two points here. First of all, “closely held” corporations foster the interests of a limited class (often families) in the same way religions do. The employees are not shareholders in Hobby Lobby, so their affiliation is not equivalent to religious practitioners. There is no equivalent of tithing, so they have not paid into an equity arrangement. They have been paid for their labor an amount they agreed to be paid. That is the extent of their involvement in the business, unlike the owners who put up the capital to start and expand the business and employ the employees.  But also, should Hobby Lobby refuse to hire people of, let’s say, the Muslim faith, they would be subject to discrimination laws. So arguing they are not all of one faith when they are specifically prohibited from enforcing such a policy, is simply absurd.
• “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
  • This argument actually runs contrary to the entire argument against Hobby Lobby. The woman is the sole decision maker when it comes to contraception, yet the woman cannot possibly provide such contraception on her own and needs it to be provided to her, free of charge, by her employer. It argues that women are capable of taking care of themselves only after they have been taken care of by someone else. That statement should be insulting to women.
• “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
  • Studies indicate the average American has sex approximately 100 times per year. Let’s be generous and assume they’re rounding home twice each time. That amounts to 200 releases per year. At $11.50 per box of 36 condoms (I just picked a brand) you would need 6 boxes to cover you for a year and would still be able to make the boom an extra 16 times. That would cost you $69 (“what number am I thinking of?”). So unless the left is arguing that condoms are simply not effective (contrary to their previously hard fought safe sex campaigns) the vast majority of people can provide contraception to themselves for about the cost of drinks in a SoHo nightclub or a brand new Xbox game. Now some have a legitimate medical need for a different type of contraception, but if the concern is simply prohibiting unwanted pregnancy, it can be done a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost of monthly rent.
• “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
  • The lower courts in these scenarios have actually been provided with a very simple, two-part test. First, is it in the national interest to guarantee access to these treatments. Second, is the mandate of coverage for these eventualities the least restrictive option. Indeed, the majority found that the government’s compelling national interest was met, but they found the government had other ways to make that happen for the limited number that objected on religious grounds.  The trouble with Ginsburg, and the left generally, is they firmly believe the government exercise of brute regulatory power is the easiest path. The majority simply said it is not the least restrictive and the left may need to think harder.
• “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
  • So the easy answer is just to deny everyone’s Freedom of Religion? Until we no longer have that pesky constitution (an idea that has a lot of sway with the left), we kind of have to go with what we’ve got. Sorry, Ruth, in a perfect world we could simply ignore that.
• “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
  • Actually, no. The court has interpreted a law – for one of the few times I can recall in my lifetime – in exactly the correct manner. They took the law at face value, narrowly tailored the ruling to the very specific facts of the case, and left behind a simple test for future courts to use in determining whether this decision applies.  I suppose because this ruling leaves no great opening for Big Government to drive a truck through, Ginsburg considers it a failure. In reality, we need more decisions like this, and fewer Ruth Ginsburgs on the nation’s highest court.

Share

Tags