It's fitting that the pro-abortion crowd dominating the Obama executive branch is not about to adopt a "live and let live" attitude toward its opponents in litigation concerning the government's effort to force corporations to subsidize the killing of human beings.
The Affordable Care Act, an Orwellian title for a statute if there ever was one, requires employers to provide health care coverage for their employees that fully covers all forms of "contraception."
Let's stop right there. Do you get the idea that the pro-abortion left is trying to force its ideology down our throats as much as it's trying to coerce its policy agenda upon us? These liberals want to not just have their way -- to force every last objecting employer to subsidize a procedure it morally opposes -- but lord it over us, as well, in a punitive, bullying way. It's not enough that the employee has a right to use the drugs; the employer must be forced to pay for it. In your face, again.
The two corporations fighting the federal government in a case that is scheduled for oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday are Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The owners of these companies do not object to providing their employees insurance covering most forms of birth control, but they have drawn the line at so-called emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B, ella and intrauterine devices.
But to call these drugs "contraceptives" is another Orwellian leap. A contraceptive is defined as a device to prevent conception or impregnation. It's clear from the roots of the word "contraceptive" that it means something "contra" (against) "conception" -- pregnancy.
This is not what these disputed "emergency contraceptives" do. The government doesn't even deny that the drugs prevent pregnancy (conception) by preventing human fertilized eggs or embryos from implanting in the mothers' wombs. So they are not contraceptives but post-conception drugs that kill the already fertilized egg.
If pro-abortionists are so sure of their moral position and the public's agreement with it, why do they habitually distort word meanings and reality to promote their cause? Why do they persist in calling those who favor the right to terminate life in the womb "pro-choice"? Their movement does everything it can to devalue life and to maximize abortions, both to feed the infernal abortion factories that profit off this procedure and to prevent any inroads into their practice for fear of a slippery slope.
They often don't, for example, inform prospective patients of all the possible problems that can ensue with an abortion. They glamorize the hideous procedure and hide its psychological and physical side effects. For someone to be legitimately pro-choice, he must favor that those making the choice be fully informed as to its consequences. Pro-choice also implies a neutrality toward which choice is made. More importantly for purposes of the litigation at hand, pro-choice means not forcing people and businesses to pay for a procedure they object to on religious grounds.
But we see no evidence of any of this from the pro-abortionists. Instead, we see their further deceit in their pretending that an unborn child, almost no matter how far developed, is but a mere appendage to the mother's body -- that there is no third person involved and that only the mother has a vested moral stake in the outcome of a terminated pregnancy. This is contrary to science and to reality itself. They know better. We know better.
In this very litigation, the pro-abortion federal government is playing word games again. CNSNews.com's Terry Jeffrey reports that in its brief to the Supreme Court, the administration essentially misled the court in saying, "The Greens (the family that runs Hobby Lobby) maintain the sincere religious conviction that human life begins at conception, that is when sperm fertilizes an egg." This is not what the Greens contended in their brief, says Jeffrey. The Greens didn't state that they have a "sincere religious conviction that human life begins at conception." They said they have a "sincere religious objection" to providing coverage for drugs and devices that might cause abortions -- the killing of human life, which begins at conception, according to multiple science texts they cited for the court.
Linguistic sleight of hand is at work again, because while this is admittedly a religious liberty case, the Greens' religious objection is to killing human life as science defines it, not as their religious beliefs define it, though their religious beliefs doubtlessly agree with that conclusion.
The pro-abortionists are not content with establishing a legal right for pregnant mothers to use these drugs. They're using the coercive power of the state to compel people to pay for a procedure they find morally repugnant. The government's position compounds the already obscene provision of the law that empowers the government to force people to purchase something against their will. It forces them to purchase something that violates their consciences and their religious liberties. The pro-aborts seem wholly unconcerned that religious liberties are being squashed at the secular altar of abortion. This is wrong in every imaginable way.