Justice Kagan’s fundamental confusion that HHS’s Administrative Regulation for Mandatory Contraception Coverage is Statutory
March 30, 2014 | Did Justice Kagan embarrass herself during the Hobby Lobby oral arguments? Thomas Lifson | americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/did_justice_kagan_embarrass_herself_during_the_hobby_lobby_oral_arguments.html
If Betsey McCaughey is correct (and I bet she is, because she has not only read the entire ObamaCare bill, she has written a book about it), Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan publicly humiliated herself during the oral arguments on the Hobby Lobby case, revealing that she either did not read the law, or failed to comprehend it if she did so.
Writing in the New York Sun [Startling Rift on Supreme Court Springs From Error by Kagan On Text of Obamacare Law, below], McCaughey lays out what is wrong with the Justice’s declaration about Obamacare: she asserted that the statute itself mandates provision of birth control.
Not one word in the Affordable Care Act guarantees health plans will cover birth control products. There is no “right”. President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services added that requirement by regulation. Women have a constitutionally protected right to use birth control, but nothing guarantees that they can get it from an employer.
It was shocking to hear Justice Kagan make the same spurious claim — that women are entitled to employer provided contraceptives — during oral argument: “Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage.” Wrong, Justice Kagan. Did you also forgo reading the law, like most members of Congress?
The distinction between a regulation and a law is no small matter. As Hobby Lobby’s lawyer stressed in his closing statement, a statute, in this case Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, trumps a regulation.
Lord, help me put aside the things
that are breaking my heart,
to pray for the things
that are breaking your heart.
The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit:
a broken and contrite heart, O God, shalt Thou not despise
3:00PM EDT 5/11/2013 JEREMY WILES/CONQUERSERIES.COM
There’s a reason why breaking up from a physical relationship is much more emotionally painful and much harder to forget than one that didn’t involve intimacy. There are several neurochemical processes that occur during intimacy, which are the “glue” to human bonding.
Human intimacy is a powerful brain stimulant. When someone is involved physically, it makes him or her want to repeat that act. Their brain produces lots of dopamine—a powerful chemical, which is compared to heroin on the brain. Dopamine is your internal pleasure/reward system. When dopamine is involved, it changes how we remember.
The other part is oxytocin, which is designed to mainly help us forget what is painful. Oxytocin is a hormone produced primarily in women’s bodies. When a woman has a child and she is nursing, she produces lots of oxytocin, which bonds her to her child. For this reason, mothers will die for their child, because they’ve become emotionally bonded due to the oxytocin that is released when they’re skin-to-skin with their child.
The same phenomenon occurs when a woman is intimate with a man. Oxytocin is released, and this makes her bond to him emotionally. Have you wondered sometimes why a woman will stay with a man who’s abusing her? We know now that it’s because she bonded to him emotionally because of the oxytocin released during intimacy.
Men produce vasopressin, which is also referred to as the “monogamy hormone,” and it has the same effect as oxytocin has on a woman. It bonds a man to a woman.
These “bonding” agents narrow our selection to one person. That is wonderful in a marriage relationship but really bad in a dating relationship because you lose your objectivity when you’re searching for your potential lifemate. Continue reading
Posted on March 21, 2014 by Tim Palmquist
She was a longtime member of a pro-life Evangelical church, having heard her pastors preach against abortion many times. She had also been a client of a local pro-life pregnancy center, benefiting from their services with her previous pregnancies. But this pregnancy was different for “Opal.” In the midst of divorce proceedings, Opal discovered that she was pregnant — and her husband is not the father. To make matters worse, she was having financial problems, only being able to find occasional work as a substitute teacher.
She was too embarrassed to tell her pastor or her friends at the pro-life pregnancy center about the pregnancy. So she made an appointment for an abortion, knowing that by doing so she was planning to kill her own child.
When she arrived at Bakersfield’s FPA abortion chamber on Monday morning, she saw a group of Catholics praying outside. For some of these Catholics, it was the very first time that they had prayed outside an abortion chamber, and now they were standing face to face with a woman whose baby was about to be killed. With tears in their eyes, these first-time vigil participants expressed their desire to help Opal find a job so that she can keep her baby. Continue reading
EWTN Live – 3-19-2014 – The Pope Paul VI Institute – Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ with Susan and Dr Thomas W. Hilgers, MD
“About” Dr. Hilgers at his dedicated website.
The Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction
Podcast (obviously, no video)
Podcast: Play in new window