David Adler's Idaho Statesman Piece on the Hobby Lobby case.

Check here for David Adler's questionable piece on the Hobby Lobby case:

David Adler: Women's rights at stake in Hobby Lobby case. 

Here is my response:

JOHN C. KEENAN, J.D., O.P.L.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Mr. David Adler

Director

Andrus Center for Public Policy

Boise State University

1910 University Drive, MS1140

Boise, Idaho 83725-11140 

            Re:  Your Editorial, 03.27,2014, Idaho Statesman. 

 

Dear Mr. Adler: 

            Rarely do I find your opinion articles objectionable.  I may not agree with you in every case, but I do not find them objectionable. The referenced editorial flies in the face of good sense.

            The Hobby Lobby case was not an affront to the rights of women.  Your editorial politicizes the issue and read like a music sheet for the proverbial Planned Parenthood choir.  It falls short.

            Prior to March 23, 2010, the issue of contraception was a personal choice of men and women and a personal choice of employers to provide contraception insurance benefits.  Then, in accord with the President’s philosophy, the legislation was signed into law and used the force of government to convert these traditional choices upon the American people.  The law itself hid the agenda under the title of “preventive” medicine and turned it over to the Institute of Medicine to expand the definition of “preventive” medicine beyond its historical meaning and its application to pregnancy.  Returned to the U.S. HHS, the Secretary dutifully promulgated rules forcing employers to provide the contraception benefits.  The bait got magically switched. 

            Two points: (1) you are wrong: not all, but some of the contraception used are abortifacients and, by definition, rid the womb of an embryo; and (2) you are wrong about “religious liberty.”  The rights of conscience are at the heart of the case, a liberty so well grounded in natural rights that the American history and jurisprudence universally testifies to it—compared to what you call women’s rights granted by government and forced on employers barely four years ago.

            This issue is more about people than the corporations they inhabit and more about human dignity than forcing employers to pay for morally-objectionable benefits. 

Sincerely, 

John C. Keenan