mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway
the supreme court said that closely held corporations do not have to cover abortifacients and contraceptives.
it seems that most of the hype against it is put on. people are acting the way they are cause they are 'suppose' to to be 'good liberals'.
they argue things like 'so hobby lobby buys from china, who has woman who are forced to have abortions?'. this points out their hypocrisy. some might just be trying to point out their hyposrisy, but most seem to act as if it shows that the ruling was wrong or something.
they don't get much into substance.
when we look at substance, why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can' tforce their employers to do so? i can undersatnd that it's not always easy to make ends meet and such, but in the bigger picture, buying contraceptives is de minimis. why would someone want to force someone to violate their well gounded traditionally, religious beliefs fo somthing as trivial as that? and maybe there are public health concerns, as people wont buy birth control if it isn't free, and it cause sincreases in pegnancies and abortions. but this is a part of life. we shouldn't ask someone to have to violate their first amendment right even if there are bad social side effects that occur. it's as basic a right as it gets.
the most somone could argue, is it opens a slippery slope. but the thing is, we can always limit the decision to contraceptives and abortifacients. est way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it.
this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, both for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. and, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. but we continue to respect genuine, sincere, at least traditional, religious beliefs.
Before I continue, I want to lay out what I want potential voters to consider. Pro says the ruling is simply hype by individuals that reject the substance. I focus on the Ginsburg dissent (along with whom Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Breyer all joined) because they sit on the Supreme Court and they understand the law and, not prone to, or have a reputation for "hype." By relying solely on the Dissent Opinion, I hope only to ensure this debate remains substantive. Page numbers are given throughout the course of the argument, and if you use Chrome can go to the top right corner and use the find button to make sure every quote I"ve used is authentic and with proper attribution.
Context of Justice Ginsburg"s dissent"free of "hype" but chalk full of reasoned legal analysis
Justice Ginsburg"s dissent begins on page 60. She begins by looking at the legislation behind the case brought by Hobby Lobby, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed into law in 1993. However, as Ginsburg notes (see page 61 of dissent) the original intent of congress was rather modest, compared to the extreme view held by the majority that ruled RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) must demands accommodations of "for-profit corporation"s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners" religious faith"in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby" (Ginsburg 61). Accordingly, expresses her motivation for dissenting, stating, "mindful of the havoc the Court"s judgment can introduce, I dissent."
Her opinion begins by introducing an earlier precedent set in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey that found "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Ginsburg notes in the initial stages of drafting the ACA (affordable care act) an independent panel of medical experts worked together to make recommendations that were critical in preventive medicine. Their list included preventive services including contraception.
Pro links contraception to sex, but if he wants a substantive argument he should consider the several million women that use contraception for other medical conditions, "for example, some congenital heart diseases, pulmonary hypertension, and Marfan syndrome, and contraceptives may be used to reduce risk of endometrial cancer, among other serious medical conditions)" (Ginsburg, 64). Pro has yet to acknowledge that the decision will also affect women that use contraception for unrelated medical needs. However, Pro does acknowledge that externalities may be the inevitable result. So imagine you are an employee, your company decides the corporations beliefs conflict with the contraception mandate. They should just go out and buy it right? Ginsburg writes on page 84 that it "bears note"" the cost nearly equivalent to a month"s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage" (Ginsburg, 84)
Now let us address other salient points made by Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Ginsburg writes the following:
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and would override significant interests of the corporations" employees""and it would "deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage" (Ginsburg, 67). This may not bother or persuade potential voters if they accept that corporation"s rights trump every interest of third parties, namely employees. However, here is where Pro"s "hype argument" fails: the US Supreme Court has never "exempted a religious objector from the operation of a neutral, generally applicable law despite the recognition that the requested exemption would detrimentally affect the right of third parties" (Ginsburg, 67). As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summarized a century ago, with respect to free exercise claims "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man"s nose begins." (Quote from, 67). Taken as a whole I hope this illustrates at the very least that the Hobby Lobby ruling broke with court tradition, placing a corporation"s (a legal creation) beliefs over the beliefs of actual living, breathing human beings.
So far I have only brought up a fraction of good points from the Ginsburg's dissent but I am going to save the best for the last round. I wish Pro the best of luck. I hope by relying on the actual ruling of the Court, I showed a willingness to keep the debate on a substantive level.
linate forfeited this round.
Okay, despite the forfeiture by my opponent I want to mention just a couple of issues mentioned by my opponent and address by Justice Ginsburg. Again, I am going to follow the same format, relying on the substance of Ginsburg’s dissent—which I believe undermines the HYPE argument.
Pro states that the best argument possible could be a slippery slope argument, something I stated in an earlier round is not the same as precedent but still, if there is a slippery slope it is best manifest in a question posed by Ginsburg in her dissent:
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." (Ginsburg, pages 92-93).
In reality, the "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." (Ginsburg, 94)
And according to no less authority than Justice Ginsburg (and the only acknowledge by Pro as valid) is real, not hypothetical and presents a terrible precedent that:
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." (Ginsburg, 94).
While I could continue, Con does not feel obligated given that in Round Two Pro neglected add to his argument and Round Three ended in Pro forfeiting. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence and argument made by Con to rebut the proposition by Pro in the opening round. I hope voters will consider all. And I encourage them to vote CON!
[Sources remain the same, but I will give the link to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case]: http://www.supremecourt.gov...
And again, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent begins on PAGE 60.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|