Four links about abortion and government coercion *UPDATED*

Newborn baby seconds after deliveryI’m running late, but I had to share these four things with you:

First,  a New York Times opinion piece saying that it would be a gross travesty if the Supreme Court were to deny Hobby Lobby employees their absolute right to have a religious company pay for their birth control and abortifacient pills.

Second, an opinion piece by Pastor Rick Warren explaining why it would be a gross constitutional travesty if the Supreme Court were to hold that the First Amendment is limited to allowing people to attend a House of Worship, rather than to live their lives according to their faith.

I leave it to you to determine which of the two articles makes more constitutional, practical, and moral sense.

And to round things out:

Third, a news story from England about the fact that, not only did hospital’s incinerate fetus corpses (from both miscarriages and abortions) in a regular incinerator, two of them used the corpses to help heat the buildings.  I don’t think even the Nazis used the crematoria as heaters.

Fourth, a news story from England saying that the head of England’s largest abortion provider (and, presumably, a feminist) said that it’s perfectly fine to abort infants simply because they’re girls.  That is the reductio ad absurdum of abortion and feminism.

UPDATE:  AJ Strata has a lot of excellent thoughts about England’s newest energy source.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    “Culture of Death”, anyone…….?
     
    Sliding downhill rapidly.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Not even a culture. Just a death cult.

  • Charles Martel

    Sometimes the onslaught of depravity almost overwhelms me. The men without chests, the trousered apes are now in control.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    These tools are weak. Won’t even need more than one execution scaffold. At least, not if I was determining things.
     
     

  • Danny Lemieux

    In Phoenician times, as Judaism was gaining ground, people worshipped a bronzed statue of a god (Moloch) with the head of a bull and outstretched hands. The statue was heated to a blazing hot temperature and people gave up their newborns to be placed in the hands of the statue and burned to death.
     
    This is Moloch rising. Only this time, this demon is known by the name “Gaia”. 

    • Wolf Howling

      Shades of Moloch indeed.  Remove morality from its Judeo-Christian foundations and anything is possible.    

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Back then it was known as Carthage. Even in Ancient times, abortion was a method of population control.

  • Libby

    Imagine the outcry if the hospital instead used the carcasses of euthanized abandoned/unwanted animals from a pet shelter. Depraved doesn’t seem to be a strong enough word for this evil.

  • Wolf Howling

    I am simply amazed that the NYT can argue, with a straight face, that forcing a business closely held by Christians to fund abortion inducing drugs is anything other than a direct assault on freedom of religion.  If the Supreme Court is true to the original intent of the free exercise clause, this should be an easy case in favor of the businesses.  
     
    The problem for our modern Court is that our nation, at its founding, was not a secular nation, it was a Protestant nation – something the modern Court would never admit.  The Court has tied itself in knots over the last century trying unsuccessfully to articulate a coherent doctrine as regards the free exercise clause that protects original intent while staving off the myriad of challenges on free exercise grounds from new or outlier religions.  
     
    The very first of these challenges came after Mormonism was invented in the 19th century and a Mormon challenged bigamy laws on free exercise grounds.  The Supreme Court looked to the history of Protestant and Catholic religion to uphold those laws.  Only in the last century has the Supreme Court turned from looking at traditional Protestantism to try and craft a doctrine that looks only at the nature of the law at issue itself – i.e., whether the law at issue is “neutral” and of “broad” application.  The problem with that, of course, is that it can make free exercise clause a nullity if the people making the laws want to war on traditional religion.  It will be fascinating to see the decision that comes out of Hobby Lobby.   While I agree with Rick Warren, I am deeply pessimistic that the modern Supreme Court will agree likewise.       
     
     
                   

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    So the government gets to remove choice in the market place, decide what is and what is not discrimination (and it is doing so because it is defending its mandated government laws that replaced and entire industry that sold voluntary plans) and then gets to say that an entity like a corporation which is meant to shield a person’s individual assets from those he relies on for a living does not exist to reflect a person’s life and beliefs but does exist to take care of government favored constituencies of the moment. Wonderful. Why don’t we just find some crazy community organizer off the street and put him in charge? UH-OH……..

  • jj

    While I don’t have much use for, concern about, or belief in demons; even without their input this will be something of a watershed moment.  We have, as we do far too often – thank you, democrats – put the fate of the nation and its founding documents and ultimate direction in the hands of the famous nine retired ambulance-chasers.  At least three of whom I personally don’t regard as bright enough to get in out of the rain, and one of whom clearly doesn’t understand the job.  And, as we have done it seems a million times before, we’ll just have to hope the whole goddam circus doesn’t land – again –  in the none-too-dependable and entirely undeserving hands of Tony Kennedy.
     
    I’m uninterested in arguing the merits, the merits are obvious, and I haven’t given a f*** what the NY Times thinks about anything since I was fourteen.  I am uninterested in Ammonite gods; Canannite gods;  ‘cultures of death,’ or cults thereof.  In this case I am interested in the Constitution of the United States of America, and that’s all.  Specifically what it says about religious freedom, and whether or not our DC-based be-robed bowling team can work their way through a simple reading of its straightforward English phrases, and arrive at the obvious conclusion: that as written it trumps any exercise of a nearly 200 years newer and wholly spurious ‘right’ invented by a previous collection of figuratively peruked apes sitting in the same place.  That’s the only question that matters.

  • JohnC

    Soylent Green Energy?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The funny thing about the LEft is that their members think they can tear down the US Constitution and then say that civil war is invalid and unAmerican.
     
    The thing is, if they don’t obey the authority of the past, why should their enemies? Or perhaps they think they will have enslaved and raped all their enemies by then. Or pre/post aborted them. That would work just as well.