Posted on

Hobby Lobby Opponents: Intellectually Stunning

For anyone who, like me, believes an employer should not be forced to pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient, see what you’re up against (i.e. not much):

But you already knew that.

I am, for the record, pro-choice in the literal sense — literally pro-choice — which means: I believe fully in the pregnant woman’s right to choose abortion or choose to give birth, as she and she alone decide —  just as I fully in an employer’s right to choose to pay or not pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient, according to the employers conscience and convictions. Or to put that another way: employees do not work for an employer by right but by contractual agreement and therefore have absolutely no right over their employer’s conscience or personal beliefs or personal convictions.  The employees in such a scenario are deprived of no legitimate rights of they own. They are free to quit at any time. They are free to pursue employment elsewhere.

There is no right to have your birth control paid for.

Posted on

Obama Versus Obama: A Losing Battle

In his attempt to fully socialize American medicine, Barack Obama’s blatant and outright contradiction of himself — regarding, in particular, the Individual Mandate — damages him irreparably, in my opinion, and it’s long surprised me that this fact hasn’t been hammered home more completely.

American Crossroads, however, has just released a video that captures pretty well the essence of what I’m talking about:




As you know, oral argument for and against the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate began today, and the stakes could not be higher.



Posted on

The Best Day Yet For Individual Freedom — By Ilya Shapiro

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato, he was a special assistant and advisor to the Multi-National Force in Iraq. The following article, which is brief and well-done, appeared June 8th, 2011, on the CATO website:

In the most important appeal of the Obamacare constitutional saga, today was the best day yet for individual freedom. The government’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, spent most of the hearing on the ropes, with the judicial panel extremely cautious not to extend federal power beyond its present outer limits of regulating economic activity that has a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

As the lawyer representing 26 states against the federal government said, “The whole reason we do this is to protect liberty.” With those words, former solicitor general Paul Clement reached the essence of the Obamacare lawsuits. With apologies to Joe Biden, this is a big deal not because we’re dealing with a huge reorganization of the health care industry, but because our most fundamental first principle is at stake: we limit government power so people can live their lives the way they want.

This legal process is not an academic exercise to map the precise contours of the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause — or even to vindicate our commitment to federalism or judicial review. No, all of these worthy endeavors are just means to achieve the goal of maximizing human freedom and flourishing. Indeed, that is the very reason the government exists in the first place.

And the 11th Circuit judges saw that. Countless times, Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce. Even Judge Hull, reputed to be the most liberal member of the panel, conducted a withering cross-examination to establish that the individual mandate didn’t help that many people get affordable care, that the majority of people currently without coverage would be exempt from the requirement (presumably due to their income level).

In short, while we should never read too much into an oral argument, I’m more optimistic about this case now than any other.