Political Crossfire Forums

Ex....you keep acting like science is important to the law.

Straight up, they argued that these contraceptives were abortive because they go after fertilized eggs. That was literally the central pillar of their argument.

Thing is, that doesn't happen. So the entire basis of their decision simply does not apply to these contraceptives, which makes them just like all the other contraceptives they support.

Its like me saying I don't believe in Procedure A therefore I can't cover Procedure Z. Should have been thrown out and not even considered by the courts.

No they didn't. They said it was their religious belief that these contraceptives are abortive.

They said it was their religious belief BECAUSE these contraceptives prevented fertilized eggs from reaching the uterus. And that simply is not the case. They do not function like that in the slightest.

"In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus—a process the Greens consider abortion."

It does matter. Because they stated their beliefs were against abortion, not contraceptives. Thing is, these contraceptives don't abort anything according to Hobby Lobby's own standards.

The because is absolutely irrilivant. I don't want to eat pork because the bible says pigs are evil animals. Are pigs factually evil animals? No. But that doesn't mean my religious objection to eating pork isn't protected.

Haha no. That is like saying my religion opposes pork therefore we can't serve fish.

They stated their objections, laid out why they object, and yet none of these objections has anything to do with these four contraceptives. It should have been thrown out. They might as well have said "We don't believe in committing perjury therefore we can't provide these contraceptives."