On Monday at the Aspen Institute’s “Aspen Ideas Festival,” Hillary Clinton offered some ideas that could have floated right out of the pot-clouded mind of a Colorado stoner.
She discussed the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision which held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) exempts closely held companies from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs by providing abortifacients to their employees.
When a conservative makes an inartful or boneheaded statement, it’s trumpeted around the country by our unbiased “journalists” at CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC, and by the huffing and puffing posters at HuffPost. But when one of their own makes an utterly preposterous statement the sound of crickets chirping is deafening. And when the preposterous statement issues from their political high priestess, Hillary Clinton, you can almost see the glistening flop sweat as they try to figure out how to avoid addressing it.
Here’s what the Pythia Clinton prophesied in response to the recent Hobby Lobby decision:
Just think about this for a minute: It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that the …corporation’s employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees and, of course, denying women their right to contraception as part of their health care plan. I find it deeply disturbing that we’re going in that direction.
Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury, but as a central issue is because they are often the canaries in the mine. You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights. Some of them never had them. Some of them lose them. And among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. And it is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, that are anti-democratic, that are, frankly, prone to extremism, where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people—men—to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women, but which prop up them because of their religion, or sect, or tribe, or whatever.
So to introduce this element into our society—We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s a hard choice and it’s controversial, and that’s why I’m pro-choice. I want people to be able to make their own choices.
And it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.
I know it’s a spectrum, but all these decisions about women and women’s rights and women’s bodies and women’s roles are on that spectrum. Thankfully we’re far away from a lot of countries that don’t even issue birth certificates to girls because “they’re so worthless, why would we record their births.”
So, we’re very far from that, but, this kind of decision raises serious questions.
Allow me to summarize the priestess’s overwrought—make that, bizarre–claim: The very narrow decision that permits Christian owners of businesses to act in accordance with their religious beliefs which prohibit the taking of innocent human life is akin to the actions of primitive, tribalistic, unstable, anti-democratic, extremist societies, in which men seek to use women’s bodies to prop themselves up. Further, this judicial decision butters up the slope which will send America hurtling toward a culture in which little girls are deemed so devoid of human worth as to be denied a birth certificate.
And this from the woman who supports the “right” to kill girls in utero. In Clinton’s twisted moral universe, denial of a birth certificate is a greater moral evil than denial of birth.
Clinton claims that abortion is a difficult, controversial issue on which individuals should have the right to decide, except of course those Christians who decide they don’t want to subsidize it.
When the interviewer pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by her husband, Mrs. Clinton interrupted abruptly and defensively, explaining that RFRA was passed “because at that point there were real cases of discrimination against religious people.”
Yes, real cases, unlike the fake ones in which the government tries to compel Christians to subsidize the taking of innocent lives (or to use their labor in the service celebrations that God abhors.)
Why is Clinton not “very troubled” and “deeply disturbed” about the government compelling the owners of Hobby Lobby to facilitate the killing of innocents, an act which the God they serve forbids (Ex. 20:13)?
Clinton wrongly claims that a hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee will be denied contraception because “her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.” The employers’ thoughts about whether their employee should use contraception are completely irrelevant and were never part of the case. The case was about what the employers thought they should be compelled to provide to their employees.
Why did Clinton have nothing to say about the employers’ choice to spend their income in ways that are consonant with their beliefs, especially on an issue of such grave consequence? Even Clinton has acknowledged the grave implications of abortion when many years ago, she asserted that abortion should be rare (which raises the question, if incipient life is so devoid of personhood that it doesn’t deserve constitutional protection, why should it be rare?).
The demurral of owners of companies to pay for contraception does not rob women of their right to access it any more than the demurral of my employer to pay directly for my food robs me of the right to access it. People work in order to earn money to pay for the stuff they need and want. Employees have a right and responsibility to set priorities and make spending choices in accordance with those priorities.
As to Clinton’s claim that contraceptives—and she must mean only the 4 types of contraceptives (out of 20) to which the Hobby Lobby owners objected—are “expensive,” here is what Planned Parenthood says:
The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD, and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose.
Worst case IUD scenario, it would cost $200 per year (less than $17 per month). Best case: $60 per year ($5 per month).
Plan B and Ella are two other forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby does not have to cover. These are more expensive than IUDs but they’re used only for emergency contraception—not for a woman’s regular mode of contraception, so if used properly, the annual cost would be insubstantial.
According to the Consumerist, the average American worker spends $20 per week on coffee and $37 per week on midday meals (rather than packing their lunches, which would cost about $15 per week). A Netflix subscription is $9 per month and the average monthly cost of an HBO subscription is $16. Without even looking at clothing, accessories, cosmetic, gift, travel, or dining out expenditures, I’ve just saved the average American $144 per month—more than enough to purchase Cadillac contraceptives.
And let’s not forget that women who want contraceptives have male sexual partners who have a far greater obligation to subsidize their partner’s contraceptives than do the owners of Hobby Lobby.
Maybe if the Clintons weren’t so broke, they could pay for the IUDs and Plan B and Ella prescriptions for those Hobby Lobby employees who want them.
Clinton frets about men using women to “define” and “unify” some societal constituency in order to achieve a cultural advantage. Can she with a straight face claim that Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and she are not “using women” to define and unify the Democratic Party in the service of their political advantage? Isn’t that just what these head-scratching and offensive comments from Clinton were intended to do?
Perhaps the reason for the cricket-chirping we hear from the direction of the “progressive” press is worse than merely a desire to protect Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Maybe “progressives” can’t even see how preposterous her comments are.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.