I’m not sure anyone reads my blog posts, but I’m quite certain nobody reads the comment section. This may be, in part, because almost nobody comments. In fact, many of the comments I get come through private communications and/or Facebook comments.
When I posted my thoughts on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision earlier today, I got a private e-mail that was so insightful, I decided to share it in a separate post. Since the commenter opted for private communication, I will honor that anonymity here.
He made two very good points on Obamacare in general, and Hobby Lobby specifically. First, he pointed out that nowhere in the Affordable Care Act is it mandated that companies of any size or morality provide abortifacients in their health plans. That codicil was added by executive fiat by Kathleen Sebelius, former head of HHS. It was created by an unelected official who was clearly spoiling for a fight by expanding the sphere of government coercion into the moral space informed by religion and conscience. She got the fight she wanted and she lost. President Obama knew full well that the ACA would never have passed congress, or even have received a single vote from either party, had he included it in the bill. If they want it back in, all they have to do is pass a law including it. Go for it.
Second, he pointed out the left’s bizarre ability to equate “not providing free shit” with “banning shit.” The Hobby Lobby decision didn’t take anything away from anybody, nor prevent anyone from getting anything. It just said that people that don’t want to provide certain free shit don’t have to. That’s a gaping difference worth pointing out. I’m glad one of my alert readers did so.