Science Was Irrelevant In Hobby Lobby And That's Congress's Fault

[DonViejo]

SAHIL KAPUR – JULY 10, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT

When Supreme Court justices suggested in March that certain forms of birth control were abortion-inducing, nobody stood up to point out that the claim by Hobby Lobby lacked support within the medical community.

So it came as little surprise that the 5-4 ruling against the Obamacare contraception mandate ignored the scientific research about whether those contraceptives actually cause abortion. The religious owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood believed it, and that was enough.

"If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court, decreeing it a "substantial burden" on free exercise of religion and thus in violation of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He devoted large chunks of the opinion to detailing the beliefs of the Green and Hahn families, the Christian families who own the two respective businesses which sued.

As it turns out, the justices weren't legally required to consider the science. Quite the opposite: RFRA, a statute passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, grants special treatment under the law to religious people regardless of whether their beliefs are substantiated by evidence.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/science-irrelevant-in-hobby-lobby

[Squinch]

1. I disagree. This is all on the Opus Dei 5. If they were doing their job, they would have

made a decision that nullified that statute. Because the statute is ridiculous. That is what the SC is supposed to do.

[HockeyMom]

3. Recuse themselves?

Can a SC justice do that? Can THEIR religion (Catholic) which forbids ALL forms of contraception, prejudice them from making an impartial decision? "Facilitating", as Scalia said. Isn't that a Catholic term? He used HIS religion in his statement.

[Squinch]

4. They should. Elena Kagan does it whenever she was involved in a case in the lower courts, so they

can. But they never will.

[Ilsa]

2. When it comes to how beliefs affect others through

Public policy and laws, this must be addressed. We can't have a nation governed by laws people don't accept because they don't believe in their rationale.

RFRA made it legal to exercise one's ignorance over others, based on religious beliefs.