Sorry, but I think the religious right's position is defensible on this one. The non religious and anti-religious won't come to the defense of the First Amendment religion clause, but the initial issue was a blatant and intentional attack on that clause. The Administration was loising big time on that issue because most fair minded and Consittutional conscious Americans saw the dishonesty and oversteeping of government authority on that one and the danger to all our freedoms if it was allowed to stand.
So they used Fluke to change the debate to a women's health issue. And everybody is now focused and talking about that and no longer seeing it as a Church/State issue. That isn't Santorum's fault.
There was no court case here. All this amounted to was a publicity stunt.
And the religous right wing kooks wanted just as much or more publicity so they entered into the fray as well.
Love ya there but if you do not know that everyone of the Republicans entered into this fray for political gain only then you are as naive as they were on this one.
Fox, in the real world of politics and the law you have to know when and how to pick your battles.
This was no First Amendment battle. This was a side show publicity stunt set up by the Democrats. The Republicans bit and fought a pissin contest battle with blanks in their guns.
No offense. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the non religous or anti religous. This was ALL ABOUT POLITICS.
When the State presumes to dictate to a religious group that they MUST go against their religious convictions, that is clearly both a violation of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. It was a no brainer for anybody, religious or not, and no court in the land that respected any part of Constitution would have upheld that.
And when the Administration realized they couldn't win on that one, they tried to put the burden on the insurance companies. That didn't fly either because those of us who defend the First Amendment also saw that the same issues applied and it was still government overstepping its authority to require a private industry to sell a specific product. That is the whole issue that will be debated by SCOTUS re Obamacare. And when the Administration saw they weren't scoring any points there either. . . .
So they recruit Fluke, a brilliant diversionary tactic to distract the gullible and create a new and more sellable thesis.
And I don't care who does the speaking, if they are on the right side of the issue, their motives are their own business.
Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the motives for doing either.
.
