Rare News Desk
The internet is full of feminist wrath and illogical hysteria against the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. The fems did not get their way, and it’s bringing out the worst in them.
Videos by Rare
Let’s dissect a few of their flawed arguments making the rounds in the cyber world:
Here’s a classic headline: “BREAKING: SCOTUS Decides Corporations Have Religious Liberty, Women Do Not In Choosing Birth Control.”
Translation: Because corporations are not being forced to pay for it, I no longer have any freedom when it comes to choosing my birth control.
Doesn’t this sound like the poutiest, melodramatic, victim-ish statement in the world? And I can just hear the scoffing, dismissive way the author typed out “religious liberty.”
Looky here, Ms. Magazine: My employer doesn’t pay for the wine I drink at dinner (despite the health benefits!), but that doesn’t mean I’m obliged to drink Boon’s Farm and Boon’s Farm only.
I can buy whatever kind of wine I want, because my employer pays me money that I can use freely in any way I choose. My choices may be more limited because I am paying for the wine myself, but that comes down to my own budgetary choices and an expensive palate.
Furthermore, we all have a choice in our employer. No matter whom you work for (unless it be, say, Hugh Hefner), certain things won’t be paid for, while others will.
Employers are not required to pay for contraceptive coverage, but many still will. In fact, Hobby Lobby isn’t against paying for all contraceptive services. They are just vehemently opposed to paying for abortifacients.
“A majority of Americans agree that women should have access to affordable birth control,” says the writer. Must I point out that this ruling doesn’t shut down any contraceptive-producing factories, nor take such products off any shelves?
The “access” is still there. This same article calls the ruling a “major blow to reproductive rights.”
Did feminists just never have sex before Obamacare?
“As many as 88% of American women who have ever had sexual intercourse have used some form of contraception,” the mysterious “Ms.” goes on.
As many as 98% of Americans (I’m guessing here) who have ever brushed their teeth used some form of brush and dentifrice. Is this not a form of healthcare. Can I, then, submit the receipt for my toothbrush and paste to HR for reimbursement?
What about my contact solution? Band-Aids? No? Why not? Where does it end?
There will be perks and drawbacks to every job. If my priority in life were to have my employer pay for my alcohol, I would go work at a bar and be the happiest wine-o in the world.
The court simply upheld what had been the status quo prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. No liberties were taken away, the feminists just weren’t granted new, special privileges.
Here’s a real gem of a rant: Conservative men who agree with the SCOTUS’ ruling don’t know how sex works.
“I’m beginning to wonder if the reason so many conservative men don’t take women’s contraception needs seriously is their primary form of birth control is forgetting what hole to stick it in to make baby,” writes Amanda Marcotte.
First things first, “conservatives are out-breeding liberals,” thank you very much. A 2010 study showed that “White fertility was substantially higher in Red States than Blue States.” Pretty sure conservative men have this sex thing down pat.
Secondly, the argument isn’t about not letting people have sex with each other, even though, according to Ms. Marcotte, “there’s nothing wrong with having wanton sex with multiple partners.” It’s about not forcing employers who are opposed for religious reasons pay for products they don’t believe in.
The feminists know this. They’re just bitter.
We didn’t force Muhammed Ali to go to Vietnam because he was a conscientious objector, and the lefties of the world were all fine with that.
If we’re going to force Hobby Lobby to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, can we force Planned Parenthood to pay for Catholic families to build another wing on their house to make room for kiddies?
Or are reproductive rights just for not reproducing? I’m confused.
Finally, no bashing of feminist ideology would be complete without dismantling a Slate article. “Monday’s Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is, at best, a muted victory for the anti-choice movement,” they say.
Except that Hobby Lobby now has a choice in what coverage to provide and not provide, so you lose, feminists.
Besides, you don’t have to be religious to agree with this ruling. I’m sure there are plenty of libertarians out there who are reasonably happy the way this turned out.
Look, I get it. Feminists are super afraid of producing another human who’s just like them. I’d be scared too.
