Hobby Lobby Deceit

After the ridiculously close Hobby Lobby ruling came down Monday morning, the left went into its predictable hyperventilations. Also predictable, especially among those whose morality is driven by politics and opinion polls, was the frequent -- seemingly coordinated -- deceit emanating from the abortion apologists.

Along with the “war on women” nonsense that continues to be parroted by liberals, we also got to hear again about how “corporations are not people” (for the left, corporations are only people when it’s tax time), and how companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want to “impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”

Liberals typically use religion like they do corporations (and most other things, for that matter): only when it is politically convenient or profitable. Whenever conservatives use their morality as a basis for making business decisions or passing legislation, liberals, seemingly unaware of their hypocrisy, love to note how conservatives are “forcing their religion” or “forcing their morality” on others.

When liberals talk in terms of the “evils” of corporations and the “one-percent,” or the “rights” of women (or men) to have all the sex they want without any of the consequences, or how “wrong” it is to deny homosexuals the privilege of “marrying,” they are also making moral and religious arguments. Of course, when one’s “morals” allow for the killing of children in the womb, marriage perversions, and the like, it is rather easy to deceive others into thinking that your arguments are rooted not in some perverse morality but in “science” and “reason.”

Another common lie that made the rounds after the Hobby Lobby ruling was that the four birth-control devices opposed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood don’t really cause abortions. Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast said that such devices are “mis-label[ed] and malign[ed]” by those on the right as abortifacients. She adds “That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.”

Similarly, Robin Abcarian of the LA Times said that to conclude the two IUDs and two morning-after pills objected to in this case cause an abortion was “wildly at odds with the scientific consensus that a pregnancy begins at implantation.” Most people have probably never considered what the definition of pregnancy is, but for liberals seeking to avoid having their “contraception” labeled as abortion-inducing, this has become important.

As Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell pointed out several years ago, “Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception. Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.”

One New Zealand pro-life organization points out that, “In normal situations, pregnancy begins at fertilisation, not at implantation… It is interesting to note that a ‘wanted’ pregnancy is counted from the first day of a woman's last period. This means that at conception, the foetus is already considered to be two weeks old.”

Some liberals argue that the “contraceptives” objected to by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood prevent fertilization, and thus could never cause an abortion. Even Jay Bookman, liberal columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution didn’t bother with this argument as he noted that, “The contraceptives in question are two types of morning-after pills and two types of IUDs, all of which work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus.”

Obviously Bookman didn’t get the latest liberal talking points on contraception and the definition of pregnancy. While it is true that the devices in question sometimes prevent fertilization, in early 2013, Dr. James Trussell, Director of Princeton’s Office of Population Research and one of the world’s leading authorities on the morning-after pill, concluded that “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills] … prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.”

Of course, as with every type of contraception, a woman can become pregnant with an IUD. If this occurs, according to WebMD, “your doctor will recommend that the IUD be removed. This is because the IUD can cause miscarriage or preterm birth.”

So again we see that, in order to satisfy the libidos of liberals and deceive as many as possible, the leftist talking-heads play games with words -- just as they have with “global warming,” “illegal immigrants,” and the “Redskins.” (At least we are no longer debating the definition of “is.”) Likewise, to continue to perpetuate the “war on women” lie, liberals must pretend that all women, and all supporters of women -- which, with a wife, daughter, mother, mother-in-law, and sister, includes me -- buy into their perverted view of what it means to be a woman.

After the ruling, Abcarian declared that, “women lost.” On Monday, Cecil Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said that, “Today the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women...”

Not only do such statements ignore the views of tens-of-millions of Americans, but obviously Abcarian, Richards, and the like refuse to acknowledge the accomplished women behind companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Women like Barbara Green and Elizabeth Hahn want nothing to do with the pro-abortion worldview preached by Planned Parenthood and its ilk.

Also, examine the photos and videos of the women outside the Supreme Court when the ruling was released. There are many images showing dozens of women who, moments after the ruling, were elated.

Ultimately this debate is not about women or contraception. Just as the marriage debate is an attempt, through the force of law, to legitimize homosexuality in America, the Hobby Lobby case was an attempt to force those of a different worldview to bow at the altar of liberalism and its views on sexuality.

Trevor Grant Thomas At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

After the ridiculously close Hobby Lobby ruling came down Monday morning, the left went into its predictable hyperventilations. Also predictable, especially among those whose morality is driven by politics and opinion polls, was the frequent -- seemingly coordinated -- deceit emanating from the abortion apologists.

Along with the “war on women” nonsense that continues to be parroted by liberals, we also got to hear again about how “corporations are not people” (for the left, corporations are only people when it’s tax time), and how companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want to “impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”

Liberals typically use religion like they do corporations (and most other things, for that matter): only when it is politically convenient or profitable. Whenever conservatives use their morality as a basis for making business decisions or passing legislation, liberals, seemingly unaware of their hypocrisy, love to note how conservatives are “forcing their religion” or “forcing their morality” on others.

When liberals talk in terms of the “evils” of corporations and the “one-percent,” or the “rights” of women (or men) to have all the sex they want without any of the consequences, or how “wrong” it is to deny homosexuals the privilege of “marrying,” they are also making moral and religious arguments. Of course, when one’s “morals” allow for the killing of children in the womb, marriage perversions, and the like, it is rather easy to deceive others into thinking that your arguments are rooted not in some perverse morality but in “science” and “reason.”

Another common lie that made the rounds after the Hobby Lobby ruling was that the four birth-control devices opposed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood don’t really cause abortions. Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast said that such devices are “mis-label[ed] and malign[ed]” by those on the right as abortifacients. She adds “That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.”

Similarly, Robin Abcarian of the LA Times said that to conclude the two IUDs and two morning-after pills objected to in this case cause an abortion was “wildly at odds with the scientific consensus that a pregnancy begins at implantation.” Most people have probably never considered what the definition of pregnancy is, but for liberals seeking to avoid having their “contraception” labeled as abortion-inducing, this has become important.

As Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell pointed out several years ago, “Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception. Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.”

One New Zealand pro-life organization points out that, “In normal situations, pregnancy begins at fertilisation, not at implantation… It is interesting to note that a ‘wanted’ pregnancy is counted from the first day of a woman's last period. This means that at conception, the foetus is already considered to be two weeks old.”

Some liberals argue that the “contraceptives” objected to by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood prevent fertilization, and thus could never cause an abortion. Even Jay Bookman, liberal columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution didn’t bother with this argument as he noted that, “The contraceptives in question are two types of morning-after pills and two types of IUDs, all of which work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus.”

Obviously Bookman didn’t get the latest liberal talking points on contraception and the definition of pregnancy. While it is true that the devices in question sometimes prevent fertilization, in early 2013, Dr. James Trussell, Director of Princeton’s Office of Population Research and one of the world’s leading authorities on the morning-after pill, concluded that “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills] … prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.”

Of course, as with every type of contraception, a woman can become pregnant with an IUD. If this occurs, according to WebMD, “your doctor will recommend that the IUD be removed. This is because the IUD can cause miscarriage or preterm birth.”

So again we see that, in order to satisfy the libidos of liberals and deceive as many as possible, the leftist talking-heads play games with words -- just as they have with “global warming,” “illegal immigrants,” and the “Redskins.” (At least we are no longer debating the definition of “is.”) Likewise, to continue to perpetuate the “war on women” lie, liberals must pretend that all women, and all supporters of women -- which, with a wife, daughter, mother, mother-in-law, and sister, includes me -- buy into their perverted view of what it means to be a woman.

After the ruling, Abcarian declared that, “women lost.” On Monday, Cecil Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said that, “Today the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women...”

Not only do such statements ignore the views of tens-of-millions of Americans, but obviously Abcarian, Richards, and the like refuse to acknowledge the accomplished women behind companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Women like Barbara Green and Elizabeth Hahn want nothing to do with the pro-abortion worldview preached by Planned Parenthood and its ilk.

Also, examine the photos and videos of the women outside the Supreme Court when the ruling was released. There are many images showing dozens of women who, moments after the ruling, were elated.

Ultimately this debate is not about women or contraception. Just as the marriage debate is an attempt, through the force of law, to legitimize homosexuality in America, the Hobby Lobby case was an attempt to force those of a different worldview to bow at the altar of liberalism and its views on sexuality.

Trevor Grant Thomas At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

RECENT VIDEOS