It’s easier than it looks

Thoughts on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by Warren Meyer:

It seems that a huge number of Americans, even nominally intelligent ones, cannot parse the difference between banning an activity and some third party simply refusing to pay for you to engage in that activity. This really does not seem to be a complicated distinction, but yesterday I watched something like 40% of America fail to make it. How is it possible to make any progress on liberty and individual rights if people’s thinking is so sloppy?

It’s not. Although in some cases, based on my own observations, it’s less “thinking” than simple reflex.

I am minded of Justice Scalia’s concurrence in NEA v. Finley, 1998:

“Those who wish to create indecent and disrespectful art are as unconstrained now as they were before the enactment of this statute. Avant-garde artistes such as respondents remain entirely free to epater les bourgeois; they are merely deprived of the additional satisfaction of having the bourgeoisie taxed to pay for it.”

Some people didn’t comprehend that either.

6 comments

  1. Georganna Hancock (@GLHancock) »

    2 July 2014 · 8:25 pm

    If this is about that case of businesses not wanting their workers’ insurance to pay for birth control … I can’t understand any of it. From my first diaphragm in 1964 to my last plunger of foam around 1998, I had to pay for my contraceptives of choice. Health insurance pay for it?! What a crazy notion!

    Ergo – where’d this “reflex” stupidity come from?

    Plz respond on Twitter, if possible.

  2. CGHill »

    2 July 2014 · 9:37 pm

    It hasn’t helped, I think, that ACA was harping on so-called “gold” and “silver” and “bronze” packages when many of us could make do with zinc. Or wrought iron.

  3. McGehee »

    3 July 2014 · 7:08 am

    I think I can still manage on a balsa wood plan, quite frankly.

  4. Dick Stanley »

    3 July 2014 · 1:16 pm

    Lots of others want balsa, as well, judging by the droves who are not signing up. I do think birth control pills should be OTC, which would make them a lot cheaper. The sad thing about the decision is that it only applies to closely-held, for-profit organizations. All others, so far, are still at the mercy of the ACA.

  5. jsallison »

    3 July 2014 · 8:00 pm

    Umm, can I sign up for the spam plan?

    On artists, on what planet did we decide to provide tax dollars to support childish jack@$$e$? Dial it back to Michelangelo and Da Vinci, you can be as avant garde as you can convince a (private) sponsor to bankroll. There’s a reason the starving artist cliche’ exists.

  6. David Richard »

    3 July 2014 · 8:15 pm

    Tomorrow is payday at Hobby Lobby, but they’re not going to buy my lunch.

    I’m going to starve.

RSS feed for comments on this post