Democrat rep claims companies not wanting to provide birth control violates *her* religious beliefs--seriously!

One of the time-tested tactics of Democrats/liberals/"progressives" is that when you want to persuade people to support you on a controvery, don't debate the actual issue, but re-frame it in whatever way will get the most people to support your position.

Case in point:  When Obamacare was passed it didn't contain a provision forcing all health insurance policies to provide "free" birth control--including the so-called "morning-after" pill.   As many commenters have noted, had the law contained such a provision it probably wouldn't have passed.  But once it passed, any unaccountable government agency anonymously writing the regulations allegedly implementing the law could add those requirements.  And they did.

Now a handful of companies founded by religious owners have challenged this requirement in court, claiming this legal compulsion to provide their employees with insurance covering contraception violates their freedom of religion.  The case is before the Supreme Court.

The court, of course, is sensitive to political pressure--including what its members and staffers believe are the feelings of "the people."  So Democrats and their media allies want to create a groundswell of public opinion in favor of their position.

They do this by interviewing Democratic congresspimps on liberal networks and not challenging their bullshit statements.

Two days ago Wisconsin Democrat representative Gwen Moore appeared on MSNBC (which I gather is some sort of cable "network") to say she’s confident the Supreme Court will rule against the legal challenge to the regulatory requirement of Obamacare noted above.  But in explaining her "logic" she totally mischaracterizes the issue, claiming that company owners are trying to decide "whether or not I'm going to be a mother."

If you accept that utterly false premise, the choice of which side should win is easy.  Which was her goal.

If you'd predicted a week earlier that an actual congressprick would make such a brazenly untrue statement no one would have believed it.  But here she is in her own words:

I don’t think those owners should...be able to decide whether or not I’m going to be a mother. ...it should not be up to a for-profit company to decide whether or not you should have birth control available to you.

But of course no one has suggested that the owners are trying to force a woman to have a child, nor to take away their right to birth control.  That's not the issue and never has been.  Rather, the complaint is that the government is forcing private parties to provide something that violates their religious beliefs.  If the Democrats want to have the *government* provide it, by all means have at it. 

Moore goes on to misinterpret the Constitution's First Amendment:

I think that the First Amendment, we revere it.  It protects the rights of religious schools, churches, places of worship. And I think that the sanctity of that is something we all appreciate as Americans. Hobby Lobby is not one of those institutions.

Hmm....last time I looked the First Amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  That would seem to apply to everyone in the U.S., not just "religious schools" or "places of worship."  (I note that Obamacare  graciously exempted actual churches from the requirement to provide free birth control--whatta guy!)

Here's Gwen again:

I think the notion of the First Amendment...is that, you know, you don’t impose a state religion on everybody. So that if, you know, if I believe that at age 24, and I’ve got three kids that I need to use birth control so that I don’t have a fourth, that’s — that’s — you can’t impose your religious beliefs on me, Hobby Lobby, that I ought to have a fourth or a fifth child because that’s what you believe.

Notice how deftly Rep. Moore re-frames the real issue--should the government be allowed to compel a violation of religious beliefs--into one infinitely more favorable to Democrats:  'You are insisting that I have a 4th or 5th child because of your religious beliefs, and thus are imposing your religious beliefs on me.'

Yep, it's a War on Women!  Led by

In case you think that summary is unfair to Ms. Moore, she clarifies:

Freedom is freedom, and...there are conflicts of rights when we start saying that a for-profit company’s beliefs supersede my own individual religious beliefs....

Ya gotta love the complete inversion:  The companies in the case are arguing that requiring them to provide insurance that provides employees birth control violates their religious beliefs, but Moore twists this into being about a violation of *her*  "religious beliefs." 

Actually no conservative should be surprised by this, since free *everything*--meaning, of course, paid for by someone else--has been the liberal/Democrat/"progressive" "religion" for decades.  And birth control is just part of that world of freebies.

And once again MSNBC carries water for Democrats, and has no desire to give any airtime to the opposite viewpoint.