The liberals are big on telling falsehoods about the Supreme Court such as now employers can decide which contraceptives a woman can take. False, even after this decision a woman can use any birth control they want— its a question of which ones will be covered.

Another more serious falsehood being promoted by the liberal’s objecting to the ruling is ” the slippery slope.” Now, according to those angry with the Hobby Lobby decision, corporations will be able to stop covering immunization if their religion bans it, or blood transfusions, or even worse since “everyone knows” that people who promoted slavery in the US did it on religious grounds, people can avoid hiring black people on religious grounds. They forget that those religious claims were considered shaky even back then, and even more compelling is the fact that many of those who fought to abolish slavery did so based on religious teaching.

Those who claim a slippery slope ignore the fact that religious freedom was not the primary reason the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito wrote in his decision that the government’s coverage mandate was not the least restrictive method. In other words since the government was paying for the coverage in the case of not for profit religious organizations they could do the same for company’s such as Hobby Lobby.

Additionally many of the slippery slope predictions by the left are addressed in the Hobby Lobby decision which reads in part:

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses? (1)

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

Then there is the other slippery slope, the real one—the slippery slope of not making the Hobby Lobby decision. What would happen if the government tried to ban certain religious practices for example two that are a big part of my world circumcision and kosher slaughter of animals. Now some of you are thinking that is crazy it will never happen. I agree it won’t happen now, but ten years ago many people would have told you that an Obamacare would never happen.

In 2012 A regional court in Cologne Germany has ruled that the practice of circumcision performed on young male children was illegal. According to the Judges

…circumcision went against the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents.” They added that religious freedom would not be curtailed because the child would be able to choose later whether he wanted to have a circumcision. However, if the parents decided for the boy, it changed the body of the child “irreparably and permanently” and went against that child’s rights to choose his religious beliefs.

“The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,” the court added.

True the decision was overturned but Norway tried to ban ritual circumcision last year and in 2011 a ballot initiative to ban circumcision in San Francisco was taken off the ballot by a Judge. If a family who owns a company can be forced to pay for what they believe is abortion, could a Jewish company be prosecuted for promoting circumcision one day?

What about Kosher slaughter? Both Poland and Denmark have passed bans on the Kosher method of slaughtering animals. Could it happen here? Not today, but it could happen. If congress passed a bill that all animals must be “knocked out” before they were slaughtered for food no meat made in the US would be Kosher. What if a Jewish-owned company was prosecuted for shipping Kosher meat into the country, against the law? Would the Hobby Lobby case calling for the least restrictive protect that Jewish company?

Some would say the two slippery slope examples above are ridiculous, The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do circumcision and/or kosher slaughter. I would respond by saying they are exactly right. The Hobby Lobby case is totally unrelated to circumcision and/or kosher slaughter, it also has nothing to do with inoculations, blood transfusions and/or racial discrimination. The slippery slopes the liberals talk about are just as ridiculous as mine.