I am inserting my commentary into the dialogue that Megyn Kelly used to rebut Nancy Pelosi's claims about the male Supreme Court justices who ruled on the Hobby Lobby case, as well as to comment on the religious freedom aspect of this decision.
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi proceeded to blast the SCOTUS decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. Megyn Kelly, a former Attorney at Law proceeded to excoriate Pelosi on her misleading representation of the ruling. But first this is what Pelosi had to say.
Kelly begins her rebuttal by stating:
Then she gets on with it:
1) A little history here. In 1973, Roe. v. Wade was decided by an all male Supreme Court. As in all the Justices were men. All nine of them. So, what were those men thinking while legalizing abortion? Her (Pelosi's) belief is that men are ill equipped to handle issues relating to birth control. Is it only when the male justices disagree with her that their gender becomes a problem?
2) If John Boehner had said anything similar of the female justices, she would be the first one to implicate him being sexist. As seen below:
3) To clarify, nobody is making anything illegal. The decision was not fashioned in such a way as to outlaw anything. The diaphragm is not even an issue here, in fact it is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Every form of birth control on the market that was legal before the ruling, was still legal after the ruling. The religious freedom law that was used to make the ruling was co-sponsored by none other than Nancy Pelosi. It simply pointed out that sometimes such law will protect the religious rights of corporations. As Megyn Kelly points out:
4) She further points out that, contrary to liberals beliefs, or Pelosi's, neither the court, nor Hobby Lobby themselves took issue with covering birth control, except that Hobby Lobby objected only to certain forms of contraceptives, which terminates a fertilized egg. Some see that as abortion, as they believe life begins at conception. This was not an attempt to end birth control or women's access to such means:
5) And then she reiterates about the legality of the contraceptives in question, saying quite bluntly, that nobody outlawed contraceptives, especially the four forms Hobby Lobby was absolved of having to cover. She then takes on the issue of Pelosi mentioning the diaphragm, which as it so happens once again, was never discussed in the opinion the court handed out last week:
In Parting, Nancy Pelosi's Background on Religious Freedom:
Liberals suggesting that the court had any ulterior motive against women are simply misconstruing the decision altogether, or are trying to stir up resentment. Nobody is out to get women or harm them. Nobody is trying to infringe on their rights, they are simply saying that sometimes, owners of corporations do in fact have religious rights.
This was an attempt by Nanci Pelosi to muddy the waters, when in fact the very thing she is lamenting about was made possible by a law she helped to pass. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Ironically then, that Act was in response to another controversial Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which curbed the religious rights and unemployment benefits by the State of Oregon, of two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs after testing positive for mescaline, a substance found in the Peyote Cactus used for Native American religious ceremonies. The decision was not taken well by the American public, as many religious organizations and the ACLU responded in support of passing the RFRA. She, along with almost every Democrat in the House and Senate were braying loudly over that decision, voicing their support of religious freedom. For the record, the bill passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate that year. Some of those voting in favor of the RFRA were Pelosi, Joe Biden and Harry Reid amongst others.
The left has no footing on this issue, since they once spoke out in support of it in very noticeable fashion over 20 years ago. So essentially, they were for religious freedom before they were against it. Any positions liberals now have against religious freedom are in direct conflict with the views they held in 1993; especially Nancy Pelosi's.
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi proceeded to blast the SCOTUS decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. Megyn Kelly, a former Attorney at Law proceeded to excoriate Pelosi on her misleading representation of the ruling. But first this is what Pelosi had to say.
Nancy Pelosi said:
Kelly begins her rebuttal by stating:
Megyn Kelly said:
Then she gets on with it:
Megyn Kelly said:
1) A little history here. In 1973, Roe. v. Wade was decided by an all male Supreme Court. As in all the Justices were men. All nine of them. So, what were those men thinking while legalizing abortion? Her (Pelosi's) belief is that men are ill equipped to handle issues relating to birth control. Is it only when the male justices disagree with her that their gender becomes a problem?
Megyn Kelly said:
2) If John Boehner had said anything similar of the female justices, she would be the first one to implicate him being sexist. As seen below:
Megyn Kelly said:
3) To clarify, nobody is making anything illegal. The decision was not fashioned in such a way as to outlaw anything. The diaphragm is not even an issue here, in fact it is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Every form of birth control on the market that was legal before the ruling, was still legal after the ruling. The religious freedom law that was used to make the ruling was co-sponsored by none other than Nancy Pelosi. It simply pointed out that sometimes such law will protect the religious rights of corporations. As Megyn Kelly points out:
Megyn Kelly said:
4) She further points out that, contrary to liberals beliefs, or Pelosi's, neither the court, nor Hobby Lobby themselves took issue with covering birth control, except that Hobby Lobby objected only to certain forms of contraceptives, which terminates a fertilized egg. Some see that as abortion, as they believe life begins at conception. This was not an attempt to end birth control or women's access to such means:
Megyn Kelly said:
5) And then she reiterates about the legality of the contraceptives in question, saying quite bluntly, that nobody outlawed contraceptives, especially the four forms Hobby Lobby was absolved of having to cover. She then takes on the issue of Pelosi mentioning the diaphragm, which as it so happens once again, was never discussed in the opinion the court handed out last week:
Megyn Kelly said:
In Parting, Nancy Pelosi's Background on Religious Freedom:
Liberals suggesting that the court had any ulterior motive against women are simply misconstruing the decision altogether, or are trying to stir up resentment. Nobody is out to get women or harm them. Nobody is trying to infringe on their rights, they are simply saying that sometimes, owners of corporations do in fact have religious rights.
This was an attempt by Nanci Pelosi to muddy the waters, when in fact the very thing she is lamenting about was made possible by a law she helped to pass. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Ironically then, that Act was in response to another controversial Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which curbed the religious rights and unemployment benefits by the State of Oregon, of two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs after testing positive for mescaline, a substance found in the Peyote Cactus used for Native American religious ceremonies. The decision was not taken well by the American public, as many religious organizations and the ACLU responded in support of passing the RFRA. She, along with almost every Democrat in the House and Senate were braying loudly over that decision, voicing their support of religious freedom. For the record, the bill passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate that year. Some of those voting in favor of the RFRA were Pelosi, Joe Biden and Harry Reid amongst others.
The left has no footing on this issue, since they once spoke out in support of it in very noticeable fashion over 20 years ago. So essentially, they were for religious freedom before they were against it. Any positions liberals now have against religious freedom are in direct conflict with the views they held in 1993; especially Nancy Pelosi's.
Last edited by a moderator:
