Skip to comments.CNN’s Costello: Does SCOTUS Ruling Allow ‘Religion to Make Decisions Over Science?’
Posted on 06/30/2014 9:06:01 AM PDT by PROCON
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and that company's argument for religious freedom. CNNs Carol Costello wondered if the decision will now allow for religion to make decisions over science.
Joined by a panel of several guests to discuss the coming ruling on CNN Newsroom, host Carol Costello was more concerned with the impact the Supreme Court ruling would have on science rather than constitutionality.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Science once called for eugenics. Should we blindly follow science?
No, on second thought, don't bother.
So you have to have a room temperature IQ to host a TV show now?
This has nothing to do with science, it has to do with whether the government can compel people to act in a way inconsistent with their religious beliefs in a manner than complies with the freedom of religion. Science has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Of course science supports that. Where did she get her disinformation?
That has pretty much been the case with man caused global warming.
What does ‘science’ have to do with this?..................It’s freedom of religion.................
Costello needs a slap from Abbott.
And big boobs...............
No one denies contraception works.
No one is denying their employees access.
No one is denying the existence of contraception.
"Religion" is not overruling science, a corporation is merely not covering a medical procedure that is politically popular.
Just trying to reinforce that religion and science are incompatible. But ... I guess they haven’t looked at an ultrasound lately.
This needs to our mantra: The companys insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate. The other 4 are NOT contraception, rather they are considered “abortifacients”.
She should ask the same question about the religion of global warming.
Not a good framing of the question, but it does raise the point of how broadly applicable this ruling is.
Closely held companies now have the SCOTUS approved ability to operate in accordance with their owners religious beliefs. Does this mean that bakers can no longer be forced to create wedding cakes for gay weddings?
If science doesn’t support it, then why is it being prescribed?
The absolute hypocrisy and duplicity of the American statist left defies logical explanation!
Putting aside for the moment that statist left and logical should NEVER APPEAR in the same rant, the just announced Hobby Lobby decision by the Supremes displayed it for all to see. All, that is, except the looney 47% who are receiving all the free chit and other goodies dispensed by the left to keep them voting for Democrat hacks who promise more and more of the free chit.
At the time the left rammed through the (Un)Affordable Care Act, there were loud protests from the few million or so sane citizens still living here that it would interpose fedzilla into the formerly sacred relationship between patient and doctor. The equally looney We have to pass it to find out what’s in it left quickly waved a collective imperious hand and uttered a royal Tsk, tsk, dismissed the objectors and returned to destroying the fabric of the country.
Comes now the favorable Hobby Lobby decision and comes now two pro-abortion radical feminazis to where else MSNBC to decry and lament over the decision. One was Rep. Nita Lowey from NYC (aka Gomorrah on the Hudson) and another woman representing one of the several Margaret Sanger eugenics inspired pro-abortion groups still murdering babies in the former safety of their mothers’ wombs.
Their first and only opposition argument? Though I suspect you have figured this out, better brace yourself: It would interfere with the sanctity of the relationship between a woman and her doctor.
And before you hit the reply button with What about the hypocrisy of the pro-life right in celebrating Hobby Lobby?
You may have overlooked the third and silent party in the discussion: The unborn baby!
The pro-aborts maintain that a fetus is NOT a human being either until birth or the third trimester. (I’ll believe that when a human female delivers a chicken or a cow.) And a number of courts here and in other nations regularly rule in support of that erroneous notion.
And while we’re discussing hypocrisy, can you explain this to me? How is it that those same courts correctly rule in cases involving intentional or accidental serious injury to or death of a pregnant woman that if her unborn baby is injured or dies, her baby constitutes a SECOND victim of the trauma or crime and the jury/judge nearly always factors that into the civil judgment or criminal sentence?
That concept comes down to us from the over 2,000 year old law found in the Bible.
And here’s one final piece of law from that Good Book: A double-minded man (or woman) is UNSTABLE in ALL his (or her) ways.
What does that say about 21st century America?
6 30 2014
Great point! Common sense should deem so, but there are 4 libs on the court.
She blinded me with science.
I think that the baker that is being forced to bake cakes for a gay wedding and go to re-education camp is a sole proprietor. So it would seem that the same conclusion should be upheld, even more so.
Nobody who opposes this ruling can say anything, without flat making stuff up.
Yes but you would actually have to be informed to know that.
We are talking CNN here...
NAZI eugenics were all about “the science”.
Leftists just want to outsource the work.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Science has to do with facts. It is not a blindly followed matter.
If the people at Hobby Lobby were Muslims, the idiots at CNN would be cheering the decision.
After listening to her, albeit briefly, I think you are correct.
Well, I hear ya, but this wasn’t an abortion case.
And this is where the meme is now headed. It will ratchet up anti-christian sentiment and action. And “active” Christians are a distinct minority. Again, I don’t care if I am the lone Conservative on this. This decision is going to backfire in time.
Not to mention that the ruling opens the door for the government to pay for the coverage so it will be MORE expansive at taxpayer’s expense. And, no, Congress will not need to approve that.
Be careful what you wish for ...
Science used to say blacks were less than human.
Who doesn't like a lot of liberal opinion with your little bit of news? /s
The Constitution forbids Congress from lessening freedom of religion; it says nothing about science.
Science tells us what we can do - Religion tells us what we should do.
Here’s an idea to solve the contraception dispute: consider the use of means to induce or prevent preganacy to be non-medical. Medical procedures are to solve health problems. Deciding on whether to become pregnant is not a health issue except in cases where a preganacy would pose a health problem to the mommy.
WHAT decision of “religion over science” was made.
NOWHERE in the original legislation was the mandate that birth control MUST be in any and all insurance “policies” under the provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”. There was a clause, “as the Secretary shall direct”, but there was nothing explicit saying that ANYTHING had to be mandated beyond eliminating the prohibition against pre-existing conditions.
I put “policies” in quotes, because, strictly speaking, this whole program is not an insurance plan, it is a pre-paid coverage or an income redistribution scheme. No “risk assessment” was ever implied, either to the enrollee or the insurance company, which will be reimbursed through the Federal Treasury, if their cash flow falls below the point of continued viability.
Another “too big to fail” crony capitalism scheme.
I can explain this as someone with a medical background in Maternal Child Health.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has defined a pregnancy as beginning at implantation NOT conception, and as such argues that the 4 contraceptives considered abortive in nature scientifically do not cause abortions because ACOG ( who is a politically entity with a liberal agenda follow the money) had redefined when life begins. The four drugs in question in the HL case therefore do not cause abortion because they occur before a pregnancy has been established. Thus these talking heads claim that “science” states that life begins after implantation not conception. Hence the “science.” Interestingly, embryology textbooks begin at conception not implantation.
Hope this helps.
So it's a semantic dodge to evade the point of the conscientious objection. Thanks for the clarification!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“Science” said the Arctic ice cap would be completely melted by 2010.
Let’s send her on a canoe trip to the North Pole.
Yes, it is a semantic dodge that generates millions of dollars in revenue. You are welcome.
Biology is absolute that the zygote is a human the minute it is fertilized. He wants his religion to overrule biology.
Pray America wakes up
America never pretended to be founded on “SCIENCE.”
In that day, “SCIENCE” was a branch of natural philosophy; and in its writings, tribute to God was frequently paid. Now tribute to Darwinism is frequently paid.