In Honor of the Hobby Lobby Case, how is this a "Women's Rights" Issue?

quote:

---

i don't see how this has anything to do with rights.

---

quote:

---

By definition, if employers are paying for your healthcare--they are intimately involved in your care. They should have a say in what they do/not pay for.

---

quote:

---

to pay for healthcare.

By definition, if employers are paying for your healthcare--they are intimately involved in your care.

---

quote:

---

The DWSs of the world do NOT value freedom.

---

quote:

---

for once i would love to have somebody explain how a private employer not providing birth control is a women's rights issue

---

quote:

---

i don't see how this has anything to do with rights. BC is still legal. any woman can buy it. government isn't outlawing anything

---

quote:

---

The New York Times’ Adam Liptak puts it right there in the first sentence: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case that pits religious liberty against women’s rights.” This could not be further from the truth. Women will have the same constitutional rights to acquire and use contraception regardless of whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses. More than that, they’ll have the exact same rights as they had before the contraception mandate was a gleam in Sec. Sebelius’ eye. What women won’t have is the right to force other people to pay for their contraception, but that has never been a right recognized by the Supreme Court.

In the Bizarro World of the newspapers, not paying for someone else’s contraception is the same thing as prohibiting them from purchasing and using them themselves. This is an obviously false equivalence, but one that leftists are bent on telling themselves. No matter how many times you point out that the business owners in these cases aren’t preventing their employees from purchasing and using contraception, a smug leftist will smile and say “but women’s rights, you see,” as if these magic words excuse the lie.

---