Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme



anchor-and-hope asked: Opening up a can of worms. Here we go: Blast me for being a man, but your "response" to that post is just "idiotic." Of course there are other uses for birth control. But get it through your biased skull that Hobby Lobby OFFERS BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE and is only objecting to IUD's and "morning after" alternatives. Please quit acting like these, or birth control in general have existed forever, aren't a luxury and are some how an inane right. It's idiotic.

1. The post you’re referring to wasn’t a response to the Hobby Lobby case. It was in response to an “article” posted on Facebook that told women they should just stop having sex, AKA the “stop being a slut and making everyone pay for it” argument.

2. Thanks, but I know the facts of the Hobby Lobby case and I’ve never tried to claim otherwise. My “biased skull” understands that they object to “drugs and devices that end human life after conception.” Therefore my “biased skull” understands that the Greens (owners of Hobby Lobby) and their allies don’t understand how the so-called “morning after” pill or IUDs work. At all. Personally I don’t believe that a woman’s access to contraceptives should be in any way affected by their employer which is what the ACA attempts to protect against.

3. The Hobby Lobby case is not really about religious freedom, but about corporate personhood. The question before the court is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was designed to protect individuals can be applied to for-profit companies.

4. As the UN and other international organizations have established family planning is a human right. This is not only a health issue, but an economic issue. When woman have access to birth control and other family planning tools they are healthier and more economically stable.



1. More than two in three (68%) women voters say that corporations should not be able to exempt themselves from the requirement of covering prescription birth control in their health plans if they object to contraception on religious grounds. More than half of women characterize their opposition to this exemption as strong.

2. Women voters’ strong feelings about corporations not being exempt from the birth control provision is grounded in a solid and durable rejection of the broader argument that corporations should be exempt from any law because of their religious beliefs.

3. Women voters identify an array of reasons for why they oppose
religious exemptions for corporations on the birth control provision, including concerns about employers’ interference in personal decisions, the limits of corporate rights, and the practical implications such exemptions would have on women in their daily lives.

4. Consistent with other public polling, women voters are overwhelmingly supportive of the provision of the ACA that health plans cover preventive services with no additional copay, including birth control. On these two points, the consensus is so strong that a majority of women in every major demographic and attitudinal group agree, including Republicans.

A newly released study commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that women overwhelmingly disagree with the idea that corporations should be exempt from covering contraceptives because of religious beliefs. (via)



Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," [Kagan] told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative.



After the Arizona House passed legislation allowing religious-based discrimination on Thursday which opponents are calling "state-sanctioned discrimination towards the LGBT community," one Arizona restaurant posted this sign. (via Vote Latino)

After the Arizona House passed legislation allowing religious-based discrimination on Thursday which opponents are calling "state-sanctioned discrimination towards the LGBT community," one Arizona restaurant posted this sign. (via Vote Latino)



Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responds to a pastor’s question concerning marriage equality and Christianity.




Religious freedom must, by its very nature, include the right to reject all religion or else it isn’t really religious freedom… Consider this as well: Under the right conditions, we all want freedom from religion — or at least freedom from certain religions. A Methodist is not a Muslim for a reason. If the public school system or some other arm of government began imposing Islam, Scientology, Zoroastrianism (or even liberal Christianity) onto people against their will, I’d expect Gov. Perry and his followers would immediately demand to be free from that religion.
I’m proud we are standing up for religious freedom in our state. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.

Texas Governor Rick Perry during an announcement of the signing of the so-called “Merry Christmas Bill” which allows public school students and staff to use ‘traditional holiday greetings’ and display religious scenes and symbols on school property.

Someone call me when Perry signs the “Ramadan Mubarak Bill.”




It is well to keep in mind, of course, is that the word “God” is not in “our founding documents,” i.e. the Constitution. “Religious freedom,” however, is in both our “founding documents,” and in the Democratic National Platform.

LA Times l DNC Day Two opens with Jerusalem, ‘God’ amendments

Democrats sought to tamp down a pair of controversies as they gaveled open the second night of their convention Wednesday, inserting the word “God” into their platform and restating support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Both had been omitted from the original draft and Republicans had seized on the absence to question both the Democrats’ faith and their commitment to Israel.

The language was adopted as amendments to the party platform as the first order of Wednesday’s business, but not without controversy. It took three attempts to pass the language regarding Jerusalem and a subjective decision by the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to decide the change had the required support of two-thirds of the delegates. To many listeners, the voice vote seemed at least evenly divided.