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:We should be afraid of this court. That court decision was a frightening one. That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It's not her boss's business.
Kelly begins her rebuttal by stating:
Megyn Kelly said:Either Ms. Pelosi doesn't know what she's talking about, or she is purposefully trying to mislead you.
Then she gets on with it:
Megyn Kelly said:First of all, the gender of the Supreme Court justices in the majority is completely irrelevant. Ms. Pelosi's reference to it is an obvious attempt to stoke resentment. When Roe v. Wade was decided, it was all men in the majority. Does she think those justices were ill equipped to decide that case?
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:Or is it only when a Justice disagrees with Ms. Pelosi that his gender becomes an issue?
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:If Speaker John Boehner made a similar comment about the female Supreme Court justices, Nancy Pelosi would be crying sexism - and that's what she is guilty of here.
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:Moreover, the five men in the Hobby Lobby majority did not, I repeat, DID NOT quote, "determine which contraceptions [sic] are legal." Nor did they quote "get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm" end quote. What a gross misrepresentation! News flash: all birth control that was legal before this decision remains legal today. The high court simply found that a religious freedom law which was co-sponsored by none other than wait for it – Nancy Pelosi, sometimes protects corporations from being forced to violate their religious beliefs. She co-sponsored the law that gave them that right!
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:Neither the High Court nor Hobby Lobby took issue with Kathleen Sebelius' minions over at the HHS, mandating behind closed doors after Obamacare was passed; that companies cover birth control--16 forms of it in fact. But the majority did say that Hobby Lobby still had the right to object to covering just four forms of birth control, that happened to terminate a fertilized egg, which some believe is abortion.
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:No one ruled those contraceptives were illegal. The diaphragm was never discussed! It wasn't even one of the forms of birth control at issue, which Ms. Pelosi should really know, since she so famously promised us that after Obamacare was passed, at some point we would know what was in it.
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: