As I survey the media response to the Hobby Lobby decision, I have to say that I am particularly taken with the piece written by that paragon of propaganda Sally Kohn at the Daily Beast. According to Kohn, the Supreme Court relied on "junk science" in order to reach its ruling. Here is the essence of her supposed point:
Both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mislabel and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.
Did you know that was junk science? Of course not, since it is not. The contraceptive methods that gave rise to the case work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. That is a fact; it is not open to dispute. For those who believe that life begins upon fertilization, this process is the equivalent of an abortion. In fact, for those people it is an abortion. That is not difficult to understand. I bet that even Sally Kohn understands this. Kohn, however, does not like the label "abortifacient" applied to the process. We all understand that too, but her personal likes and dislikes regarding the use of the word does not render the process of understanding the issue "junk science". The usage of a word is never junk science. No one could argue in good faith that the people who object to the use of contraceptives that kill a fertilized egg are insincere. Are we really to accept Kohn's argument that the word used to describe that process is what is key to the decision? Are we really to believe that Kohn is that dumb? No. This is just more propaganda from a master propagandist.
The decision by the court this morning was not of major importance. It will not limit in any way the availability of ALL birth control methods to the people who work for the plaintiff companies. The only issue is that the law passed by the Democrats and signed by Bill Clinton made clear that the federal government could not force religious employers with sincere objections to the process to pay for these abortions directly.
I think there needs to be a new name for the stuff that people like Sally Kohn put out there in cyberspace: how about "junk commentary"?
Both companies say they don't object to all contraception, simply drugs or intrauterine devices that prevent pregnancy after fertilization, contraceptive methods that folks on the right mislabel and malign as "abortifacients." That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.
Did you know that was junk science? Of course not, since it is not. The contraceptive methods that gave rise to the case work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. That is a fact; it is not open to dispute. For those who believe that life begins upon fertilization, this process is the equivalent of an abortion. In fact, for those people it is an abortion. That is not difficult to understand. I bet that even Sally Kohn understands this. Kohn, however, does not like the label "abortifacient" applied to the process. We all understand that too, but her personal likes and dislikes regarding the use of the word does not render the process of understanding the issue "junk science". The usage of a word is never junk science. No one could argue in good faith that the people who object to the use of contraceptives that kill a fertilized egg are insincere. Are we really to accept Kohn's argument that the word used to describe that process is what is key to the decision? Are we really to believe that Kohn is that dumb? No. This is just more propaganda from a master propagandist.
The decision by the court this morning was not of major importance. It will not limit in any way the availability of ALL birth control methods to the people who work for the plaintiff companies. The only issue is that the law passed by the Democrats and signed by Bill Clinton made clear that the federal government could not force religious employers with sincere objections to the process to pay for these abortions directly.
I think there needs to be a new name for the stuff that people like Sally Kohn put out there in cyberspace: how about "junk commentary"?
No comments:
Post a Comment