USSC Shuts Down Obama’s Attempt To Force Christian Groups To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortion-Inducing Drugs

The Supreme Court Just Gave Obama Some Very Bad News – Tell Me Now

.

.
The Supreme Court just ruled against a major Obama agenda in a decision that is sure to leave the president devastated.

The highest court in the land just ruled against Obama’s attempt to force Christian organizations to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has ruled against President Obama.

Christians everywhere rejoiced at the decision and were thankful that their religious freedoms were being protected.

“How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?” asked Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not ‘religious employers’ worthy of an exemption.”

“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them,” she added. “That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby.”

“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate,” Windham concluded. “The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”

The Supreme Court has told Obama no time and time again, yet he just can’t seem to get the message. Hopefully, this time he finally will.

.

.

Rand Paul refuses to play the media’s game of “gotcha”

I have some reservations about Rand Paul, and Ed laid out some of his today, but I like how he handled this question about abortion

A Republican presidential candidate did something new and refreshing when challenged on his abortion views by the press: he threw it back in the face of the Democrats. 

When quizzed on his about his views on abortion, Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul avoided the gotcha game and told NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser to ask DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz if it was okay to “kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus.”

“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?” Paul reportedly said. ”You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”

I think he handled that quite properly. He did not dance around, or get mealy-mouthed. He put the moral onus back on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Well played!

OUTRAGE! Mean Republicans trying to defend unborn babies by telling the truth about partial birth abortion

Apparently the procedure is OK with Liberals. Butchering a baby is OK, but describing what actually happens during this “medical procedure”? GRISLY! Unbelievable, the act is not grisly, but describing it is? Moral retardation on display

The Bloomberg headline was shocking: “Grisly Language Propels Kansas Anti-Abortion Bill as U.S. Model.”

Bloomberg journalist Esme E. Deprez was tasked with informing readers about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, which last month was introduced in both Kansas and Oklahoma. The writing experience obviously wasn’t pleasant for her. The story began:

Activists in Kansas and Oklahoma are seeking to outlaw a common abortion technique by using the text of legislative bills to lay bare its graphic details, a tactic that may spread across the U.S.

Republican lawmakers in both states are pushing to ban what they call “dismemberment abortion” with language supplied by National Right to Life, a Washington-based advocacy group. Opponents say the bills inaccurately describe what medical literature calls dilation and evacuation, a method used in 96 percent of second-trimester terminations, according to the National Abortion Federation….

The aim is to rebrand a medical procedure with a new and unsettling name, include clinical details of what it entails in a bill and let lawmakers’ reactions guide the way they vote.

The Moral Retardadtion if Abortion and Feminism

Sick, sick, sick

In a stunningly evil and disgusting article, a feminist only willing to identify herself as “Lana” has described her decision to abort her child, based solely on the fact that he was a boy.

Lana begins her article by explaining that “the patriarchy has been well entrenched since the dawn of time,” and continues by writing about an argument she had with a man on an airplane, while she was pregnant, to summarize what she deemed “extreme patriarchy.”

The description of the argument is straight forward: Lana was flying to San Francisco to participate in an Occupy Wall Street rally. When the person sitting next to her found out about it, he swore at her, to which Lana responded by screaming at the top of her lungs “ASSAULT.”

After “contemplating” lying to the flight attendants and telling them that the man struck her, Lana decided to tell the truth. The flight attendants told her that they couldn’t force the man to move in response. And in response to that, Lana decided that she “could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause.”

The “cause,” in her mind, is feminism. Soon after, she went to the doctor and was told that she was pregnant with a boy. Her immediate response, she writes, was “my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

Over the course of several days, she decided that she could not bring another male into this world. She explains, “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.

“I knew what I had to do,” she adds.

Lana writes that she has no regrets for what she did and was “happy” that she did something “positive,” explaining, “It went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way.”

This is the naked face of the barbarism of radical Feminism, and of abortion on demand. I cannot even fathom having a child killed because of their gender, But, whoever wrote this is obviously a psychopath, after all, no normal human being would celebrate such horror.

*VIDEO* AlfonZo Rachel: MSNBC’s Very Scary Abortion Argument – Are Babies No Different Than Cancer?


.

.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a special kind of stupid

I do not think Harris-Perry is a mean woman, she seems to have a genuine sweetness to her. Having said that, I must say she is what I call sincerely stupid. That is, she actually has no clue, as this illustrates

The outrageous comments were made during a discussion with Julian McPhilips, a civil rights attorney who “represents the rights of the unborn as a guardian ad litem in Alabama court because of a state law (HB 494) that allows juveniles who don’t have parental permission to petition the court for an abortion.”

Here’s what Harris-Perry had to say:

“But I want to ask one final question though: Are you at all distressed in the ways that I am about the idea that there is a separate interest between an individual and something that is happening in her body that cannot at that moment exist outside of her body? So, the idea, for example, that I would need a court’s permission for cancer treatment or the court’s permission for a surgery that would remove my hand. Like, if it’s my body, I guess I can’t understand why the state would have to give me permission.”

Good Freaking Grief. The folks that make up the pro “choice” rhetoric know they are lying, they are evil, but not stupid. Harris-Perry, though, is not evil she is just stupid enough to drink the Kool-Aid that evil people serve up.

Obama Regime Forced To Pay $570,000 To Pro-Life Legal Group Over Abortion Pill Mandate

Obama Admin Forced To Pay $570,000 To Company It Tried To Force To Obey HHS Mandate – Life News

.

.
The bill is coming due, literally, for the Obama administration over its attempts to force companies to comply with the HHS mandate, that compels them to pay for drugs for their employees that can cause abortions.

The pro-life legal group ADF obtained a settlement in federal court Friday that requires the Obama administration to pay an agreed-upon amount of $570,000 to ADF and allied attorneys who won a lawsuit at the U.S. Supreme Court against the abortion-pill mandate in Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell.

Conestoga Wood is one of the companies that challenged the abortion mandate in court and the high court eventually sided with them and Hobby Lobby, the most prominent firm taking on the Obama mandate.

“The government does a serious disservice to taxpayers when it pursues unjust laws that force many of them to defend their constitutionally protected freedoms,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman told LifeNews.com. “While this case is finally over, many others remain. We hope the administration will stop defending its indefensible abortion-pill mandate and end its waste of taxpayer dollars on a fruitless quest to force people to give up their freedom to live and work according to their beliefs.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Conestoga Wood Specialties and the Hahn family, Mennonite cabinetmakers in Pennsylvania who appealed to the nation’s high court after a divided federal appellate court ruled against them. The Supreme Court eventually sided with the company.

“The cost of religious freedom for the Hahn family and many other job creators across the country who face this mandate is severe,” added Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “A family should not face massive fines and lawsuits just because they want to earn a living consistent with their faith.”

The mandate could have cost the family nearly $3 million per month in fines if it doesn’t agree to live contrary to its Christian convictions. It forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties by the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies if the mandate’s requirements aren’t met.

Conestoga Wood Specialties owners Norman Hahn, Elizabeth Hahn, Norman Lemar Hahn, Anthony H. Hahn, and Kevin Hahn desire to run their company, a wholesale manufacturer of custom wood cabinet parts, in a manner that reflects their Christian beliefs, including their belief that God requires respect for the sanctity of human life.

.

.