Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Hobby Lobby Goes to Court Today--So Does Religious Freedom and the Sanctity of Life

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in the case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.

The crux of the Obama Administration's argument is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to exercise their religion---they cannot run their business according to their Christian beliefs.

In the context of this case, the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother's womb is not an abortion.

The dispute involves a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued under the Affordable Care Act. This regulation says that virtually all health insurance plans must cover, without any fees or co-pay, all FDA-approved “contraceptives.”

But what the FDA and the regulation call “contraceptives” include drugs and devices that sometimes work not by preventing conception but by ending a human life after conception. In other words, in these circumstances, the mandated drugs and devices are not contraceptives at all, but post-conception killing agents.

Today the US Department of Justice is trying to make the case that killing an embryo is not an abortion.

But the DOJ is also "evolving" in their "truth", because what they are saying today is different than what they were saying last September in the brief to this same Court.

"Relative truth" gets tricky.

When the Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the Hobby Lobby case last September, the administration conceded in its petition that among the mandated drugs and devices were some that did indeed prevent human “fertilized eggs” from implanting in their mothers’ wombs.

Today, the US Department of Justice is trying to tell the Supreme Court that killing an embryo is not an abortion.

Terrance Jeffery has written an excellent article and has given clarity to this issue that is before the Court today.

Jeffery points out that although the DOJ says it isn't an abortion, "a collection of citations" posted on a Princeton University website, medical dictionaries, embryology texts, and a federal commission, have all defined fertilization as the beginning of a new human life with the formation of an embryo."

Jeffery's in depth article concludes, "The Obama Administration wants Americans to believe an 'emergency contraceptive' can act post conception to kill a 'fertilized egg'---but dos not mean it induces an abortion."

"It just kills a human being," he says.

This is a defining moment for religious freedom in America and for "Life" itself.

This is about much more than the Green family who own Hobby Lobby and are seeking to practice their Christian faith in their business. It is a confrontation between the forces of life and those who seek to honor its sanctity and the forces who seek to expand abortion as "choice" and a convenient way of birth control---or in some cases eugenics.

This decision will touch every American citizen in some measurable way.

It is also a profile on the struggle in America to defend religious freedom against the hypocrisy of the abortion and progressive movement that consistently works to destroy life and erode freedoms.

Often this struggle is subtle and unnoticed. For example: This administration and the secular progressive movement have recently replaced the term "religious freedom" with the term "freedom of worship."

Just words, some would say. But its more than that.

Religious freedom speaks to public practice or public expression. Freedom of worship speaks to a practice within the church building or "worship" services, etc.

You are welcome to express your religious beliefs within the church building, but not in the public market place of the culture.

I noted that Mrs. Obama in her speech to Chinese students this week affirmed a right to "freedom of worship" not "freedom of religion."

Make no mistake, religious freedom as our Founders understood and established it, is under severe attack.

So is the sanctity of life.

The attack on life and liberty is born from the same root.

When you trace the roots of the abortion movement in America, it is not difficult to see how we have evolved to this level of disregard for life.

The disregard for life has paralleled an evolving disregard for God and eternal principles, including the very basis of our freedom and liberty in America.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican, was quoted in an article Friday saying President Barack Obama's policies "have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization."

He said that Obama wants to restrict religious freedom and force individuals, outside his or her place of worship, "to act against his rightly formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions."

They are telling us we are "free" to express ourselves in the context of a church building, but we can not express our religious views in any meaningful ways in the culture.

Next week the Planned Parenthood Federation of America will present House Minority Leader (former Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi with Planned Parenthood's highest award---the "Margaret Sanger Award."

Hillary Clinton received the award in 2009.

The award is named to honor the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger's life work was the advancement of eugenics---breeding better humans through eugenics.

Sanger's original organization became known as Planned Parenthood in 1942.

Sanger wrote a number of articles and essays intended to advance eugenics in the culture.

In 1921, Sanger wrote an essay titled, "Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" which was published in the October 5 edition of "The Birth Control Review."

In the article Sanger expressed her deep belief and full support for eugenics---which was, and is defined as "a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents."

Sanger's work particularly targeted the Black community. Planned Parenthood continues that tradition to this day, focusing their abortion business on minority neighborhoods.

In the essay linked above she noted that eugenics had been subject to "the cruel ridicule of stupidity and ignorance."

Sanger goes on to write: “In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.”

The essay goes on to state: “As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."

“In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes."

“On the contrary," Sanger continued, "the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The 1921 article in "The Birth Control Review" was neither the first nor last time Sanger discussed eugenics.

The February 1919 issue of "The Birth Control Review," she published an article entitled, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment," which she argued that birth control advocates and eugenicists both want the “elimination of the unfit.”

In her 1919 essay, Sanger argued that women had a "right" to decide how many children to have.

“We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother," wrote Sanger.

In the “conclusion” of an undated, typed, draft article that is included in the Margaret Sanger Papers at the Library of Congress and that is entitled, "The Unfit," Sanger did not say that it was a woman's right to decide how many children to have but it said that some people should be given "a choice of sterilization or isolation."

In that article she wrote:

“We can see how naturally we are today brought up to those questions of birth control as an instrument of higher breeding and regeneration of the race."

“The Question of race betterment is one of immediate concern, and I am glad to say that the United States Government has already taken certain steps to control the equality of our population through the drastic immigration laws."

This is a glance at the roots of the battle against life in America. CNS NEWS has written a more detailed article on Sanger and this subject.

Influential women like Hillary Clinton and now Nancy Pelosi are regularly awarded the "Margaret Sanger Award" for their efforts in advancing her work.

The legacy of Margaret Sanger lingers in the halls of Congress, and now the halls of the highest Court in the land.

God help us.


  1. None of this surprises me. What surprises and grieves me is the silence of Christians.

  2. Why do we limit giving passes on the law to just religious beliefs? Aren't all beliefs one may have just as valid to that person? Since religion beliefs can't be tested or proven more valid than other beliefs, how do you justify singling them out for special treatment and where do you draw the line? I say there should be no line, beliefs are beliefs and the law is the law. No one belief is more important than another.

    1. We allow all kinds of passes on all kinds of laws to many different people. What are you talking about?

      Please read the Declaration of Independence. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Our government is designed for a moral and religious people, its wholly inadequate for the governing of any other. Because we have religious freedom, many people of all kinds of faiths have risked their lives to get here. A person is free to have no beliefs at all, but the guiding light for morality in this country is the Bible.

      Many Founding Fathers affirmed this, including ones of a less religious nature. If we cast off the wisdom and prudence of God's word we endanger the very freedoms we enjoy. We will slip into dissolution and anarchy, with the result being a dictatorship.

      We are rapidly approaching that day.

      Craig in Lacey

    2. OK, so if I really believed God wanted me to be married to four different women, as some religions believe, you'd be ok with that? I should get a pass on the bigomy laws?

    3. And so we see how once "anything goes", everything good seems to be on it's way out, as more of "anything goes" seems to want to also have a go at it.

    4. What Craig says is true, whether you agree or not.

    5. anom 518 what your saying is perhaps true . So I ask you , why is your belief better then someone else and can use the force of government to insure it ? The issues involved is not even all contraceptives , they are a few that induce abortions and abortion itself . There is no such thing as free contraceptive , when you get something for free, someone gave up their property so you could have something for free. The difference here is your using your moral standard to tell someone else they moral standard is not good enough , and you deserve something fro free .

      So why is your moral standard better then Hobby lobby ? No one is saying anyone can do what they like , have sex when they want , even have abortions for whatever reason . Just some people don't want to pay for your moral standards .


    6. Anom staw man arguments are used to counter this all the time . Attemting to make the biggest reason why government does not have a right to make someone pay for abortion . The same argument used in reverse is are you ok with government forcing you to kill your Mother because they are in too much pain and they are old . I agree its hard to come up withy a logical answer to why we should allow gov ernment to force us to pay for abortions when everything that makes up your being , your faith says it is wrong to kill someone . Trying to justify that on your part is a hard task . ever consider because it is wrong to make someone to pay for an abortion if they believe it is wrong ?

    7. 8:34

      No I wouldn't, the Bible is clear. Adam and Eve are the model, not Adam & Eve & Sue & Patti and whoever else. No Adam & Steve either.

      That's what I was talking about. When everyone begins to do what is right in their own minds, we see the dissolution in our society. We continue to believe Satan"s lie, "you can be as God, knowing good and evil" and we're paying a terrible price for our arrogance and hardness of heart.

      There is good news though, forgiveness is available if we repent(change our minds) and seek the righteousness that Jesus Christ brings.

      I fear for our country, we can't stick our finger in God's eye indefinely. There will be a reckoning.

      Craig in Lacey

    8. So you just admitted that you would take away my religious freedom if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. My point exactly. Touche'.

    9. Mick, to answer "why is your belief better then someone else and can use the force of government to insure it"

      Democracy. We create rules as a society. I've always felt that pot should be legal. Most americans disagreed with me and kept it illegal and used the force of government to enforce their decision. I didn't get an exception just because I disagreed even though it was a deeply held conviction. The law is the law. You say this issue is about abortion, about killing. Well, most citizens and medical professional would disagree. Contraception is not abortion. Even the morning after pill does not kill anything, it prevents ovulation. So, we pass laws based on what we believe is best for america and it's citizens. If you don't want to have to comply with the laws, don't go into business.

    10. 8:54

      Do you think Jim Jones was entitled to religious freedom? How about Al Queda? Heaven's Gate? I hope you see the point. Touche'

      Craig in Lacey

    11. Thats a fine answer for those not in business. On the other hand if you are forced to close your existing business, people lose their jobs......... and their health care.

      Craig In lLacey

    12. Craig, do you really think that Jim Jones or Al Queda is an equivalent comparison to polygamy regarding religious freedom? Really? Looks like my point still stands as you so willingly validated it, you only believe in religious freedoms that you endorse. Just be honest about it.

    13. 3:39

      You are free to believe in the "flying spaghetti monster" if you wish. That won't give you the right to kill babies. That was to focus of Gary's post, you brought up polygamy.

      Are murder and polygamy equal comparisons of religious frweedom?

      Craig in Lacey

  3. I can't seem to forget the government bleach program which destroyed so many motors and good auto parts. "Obsolete", I suppose.

  4. I think I know what "Yes we can!" means, (Gen 11) but we are from another city. (Gal 4:26)

  5. Mick, were you countering my statement or agreeing with it, I'm not sure

    Craig in Lacey

  6. Hobby Lobby stands before the Supreme Court over its conflict with a provision in Obamacare. Hobby Lobby must provide healthcare that includes the IUD and the “Plan B” drug among others that are considered “contraceptives.” Both of these result in the death of a fertilized cell and to them requires participation in an abortion and the taking of an innocent human life.

    While other drugs can require co-pays, these must be provided free. Additionally, the fine for providing excellent health coverage without these items is vastly more severe than providing no coverage at all.

    How does this government outrage compare with those that England promulgated against the colonies leading to the American Revolution?

    The government’s position is that a corporation cannot have a conscience that differs with the government’s.

    Whether you must provide Plan B or Zyclon B—What’s the difference? The most common defense at Nuremberg was, “We were just following orders.” It seems that our defense will be, “We were just filling orders.”

    1. "We were just filling orders" Ouch! What an indictment of our generation, Thanks Christian!

      Craig in Lacey


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.