Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

November 27, 2013 - 9:24 am

A Wisconsin Democrat said she’s confident the Supreme Court will rule against Hobby Lobby in its protest of the contraceptive mandate because “motherhood is not a hobby.”

The challenge hinges on whether employers can opt out of the requirement because of the religious convictions of the business owners. Arguments will likely be heard in March with a decision in June.

“I am just optimistic about this. I mean, enough already. The fact that they took Hobby Lobby’s case with this cohort of 46 companies — wooden furniture makers, automotive part makers, I think it says it all. I mean, motherhood is not a hobby. Women’s health is not some arts and craft. I mean, nobody spends more money at the arts and crafts store than I do,” Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said this morning on MSNBC.

“But I don’t think those owners should, first of all, be able to decide whether or not I’m going to be a mother. And I think people would be surprised to know that great numbers of women are treated for endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cysts with birth control. And it should not be up to a for-profit company to decide whether or not you should have birth control available to you. Enough already,” she added.

Moore said she’s so confident of victory “because 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,” she said.

“The Hobby Lobby is not one of those institutions. And the Affordable Care Act says that everybody, especially women, ought to have basic health care and birth control is basic health care. I have a sister who we used to tease. At age 70, she was treated for a life- threatening illness with birth control pills. Hobby Lobby should not be able to intervene in that medical care.”

Moore was asked about Hobby Lobby’s argument that they express their faith in every aspect of their business, and oppose funding things like the Plan B morning-after pill — thus exercising their freedom of religion.

“I think the notion of the First Amendment, I’m not a lawyer, 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,” the congresswoman said.

“Freedom is freedom. And I think that we find there are conflicts of rights when we start saying that a for-profit company’s beliefs supersede my own individual religious beliefs or not.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Hobby Lobby isn't saying you can't have birth control pills...... They simply don't want to pay for them. Can the liberal mind wrap itself around that little bit?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Last time I checked, Hobby Lobby isn't responsible for your choices to have sexual relations, therefore can't be held liable for those consequences-nor should any other business or individual. What the hell is so difficult to understand about that?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Constitution was written to be read and comprehended by a people who might lack much--or any--formal schooling. In other words, anyone with even basic literacy can understand the language of the authors. Alas, that means almost our entire governing class does not rise to the level of an 18th century indentured servant. God be merciful to us.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (64)
All Comments   (64)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The basic dishonesty of Dems like Moore is disgusting. Unfortunalately far too many women listen to her without understanding that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to take away your personal "right" to birth control or abortificients, it simply doesn't want to pay for them for religious reasons.

Also by her "reasoning" the 1st Amendment only applies to churches schools and houses of worship. I guess that means the rest of us don't have that protection.

I'm from Wisconsin and have heard Moore's dishonesty and stupidities before. Fortunalately she spouted this bit on MSNBC which means not a whole lot of people heard her. Oops til now.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you follow Moore's "logic," all drugs should be free and not sold by "profit making companies." Oh, I guess that's the idea, isn't it?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I live in the Milwaukee area and met Gwen Moire. She is undeniably one of the dumbest individuals on the planet. She is a machine politician who was a last minute candidate when the main, read that intelligent, candidate was unable to run. A life-long fraudsteer, she had connections to ACORN and every welfare scam outfit in America.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"At age 70, (my sister) was treated for a life- threatening illness with birth control pills."
--Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)

Once again, the Democrat femmunist is wrong again. "Birth control pills" are a use of a drug, not a drug. Progesterone is a drug. At age 70, Gwen's sister didn't take girly-parts hormones to reduce her number of trips to the abortionist. Try again, Gwen.

"...I think that the First Amendment, we revere it. (sic)”

Little Gwen doesn't "revere" (her word) the first five words of the First Amendment enough. And by the way, doesn't her reverence establish a religion, a peculiar religion of her own but a religion nonetheless? (Heh. Petard hoisting should be an Olympic event.)

“It protects the rights of religious schools, churches, places of worship."

The First Amendment does more than sort'a, kind'a protect buildings. Duh. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to live in accord with ones religion--even when interacting with others.

52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dems like Moore "revere" the Constitution and laws only when it suits them.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think religious beliefs should enter into government or legislation at all. My taxes help support many thing I don't agree with.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This thing is a Supreme's 9-0 decision for Hobby Lobby unless the Feds argue birth control pills are a tax. Then, I'm not so sure about John Roberts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What she really meant to say, "Motherhood isn't a hobby, but an affliction that must be avoided at all costs."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That Democrat-in-heat wants to avoid motherhood? She should control her animal impulses and try Rush Limbaugh's recommendation. Abstinence, it works every time it is tried.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
... I've gotta think the abstinence thing would be far easier for Ms. Moore than the alternative... a "cougar" she ain't!
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
She should close her legs!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Is this womens mind twisted or what. Progressives have come to believe if you don't fund their activities you are denying them a right. I suppose if her constituates don't get food stamps the gov't is denying them the right to eat. Where does it end? Everyone has the right to happiness and everyone has different goals to achive it, it could get very expensive. But then Democrats don' believe the feds spends enough money now.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Opposition to this case is intolerance. After all, what critics of the exemption are saying is that if an atheist owned a company and didn't want to offer insurance that covers abortion and contraception these critics would have no objection because it wouldn't stem from a religious belief.

The fact is religion has nothing to do with their objection. They are opposed to any choice in coverage no mater what the reason.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All