Posted on 03/15/2012 11:55:34 AM PDT by WPaCon
The question has been asked: "Why are President Obama and the Democrats spending so much time and effort on universal coverage of contraception?" Surely they knew that there would be religious objection. Surely they did not think that such a decision would not go unchallenged. Why waste time and resources defending a controversial stance with so many other things going on?
Recent polls show President Obama's approval numbers dropping among female voters, despite the "War on Women" attributed to the Republicans, and religious leaders have spoken openly from the pulpit, decrying the legality and morality of the contraception mandate, despite some apparent "concessions." But will this stop President Obama? I don't think so.
President Obama wants the contraception mandate to go to court. He wants it to go all the way to the Supreme Court, even if he is not re-elected. Once it finally arrives there, it will be argued as a First Amendment issue. But it will not be argued as you think -- as a freedom of religion issue; no, it will be argued by the government as a freedom of speech issue, under a constitutional theory of "First Amendment neutrality," and arguing against the idea of "content-based underinclusion."
Put simply, content-based underinclusion is a term signifying that the government (at any level) has entered into the social arena and has picked winners and losers based on their content. It can be practiced through punitive legislation -- imposing fines or penalties upon the individual or group -- or it can be practiced through subsidiary legislation -- granting awards or incentives to an individual or group. A very simplified example of the former, being applicable to the First Amendment, would be punishing or criminalizing the public display of any nudity -- unless the depiction is female.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The abortion vampires at work.
Was this moved by a moderator to Front Page news or did I click something to put it there?
Just curious so that I know what I’m doing when I post next time.
Women have the right to do as they ‘want’ and I’m not here to judge.
But, gals and guys who want to ‘party’ should be looking at home for support $$$$’s not to Mr. & Mrs. America.
Kagan, Obama, et al equate "freedom of speech" with government-funded healthcare, contraception and abortion! Tortured juxtaposition and totally fails the "reasonable man test".
Duplicate post.
It can also back fire in terrible unintended consequences. Assume for a moment that this convoluted theory sways the judges. Why then could not the same argument be used AGAINST the government advocating ANY program that a minority abrogates their free speech. Farm subsidies, green energy programs, etc. would all be fair game and could lock the regime into a battle that would cripple them.
The first one was posted on 3/14. I didn’t see it because I only looked at 3/15 posts since that is when the article says it was posted.
I'm to the point where I wish we could just get the November election over with. If Obama wins, we can move on to the long overdue CWII or if Mitt wins, we can move on to the long overdue CWII.........
isn’t that how they lit this firecracker with Griswold vs. Connecticut back in the 60’s? (infringing on First Amendment rights to tell people about contraception)
More importantly (because of the many ramifications) is that Obama is serving up a hanging slider on purpose to Elena Kagan so she can crush it out of the park and "establish a principle" </ liberalspeak > as you describe.
He's going to do this with issue after issue, which means in effect that the Administration now has two Executive Department employees sitting on the High Court, each holding Obama's power of attorney as agens in rebus, as the Romans called such servants -- which is exactly why neither one of them should have been confirmed. Partisan agitators and political agents and spies have no business on the Court.
Characterizing either abortion or contraception as a "health" issue is utterly disengenuous, but the precedent is established far and wide at this point, despite the fact that scientifically, neither is necessary to maintain a patient's health.
the Administration now has two Executive Department employees sitting on the High Court, each holding Obama's power of attorney as agens in rebus, as the Romans called such servants -- which is exactly why neither one of them should have been confirmed. Partisan agitators and political agents and spies have no business on the Court.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.