Thursday, March 27, 2014

This is why women should not be on the Supreme Court...

because they tend to reason by way of their feelings rather than logic.

Before we go further, I'm well aware that many of my female readers are not going to like what I have to say.  That's mainly because the majority of women who visit here have exceptionally logical minds.  Being a woman does not preclude thinking logically.

However, women and men do think differently and reach conclusions based on different criteria.  Women have been gifted with an abundance of compassion and a nurturing spirit.  The care and raising of children requires these types of gifts.

Men, before being turned into moisturizing metro-sexual wussy pants by over bearing women libbers, used to be the providers and protectors of the family.   Over the last 50 or so years, however, we have seen a role reversal in the family that has not born fruit for men, women, or their children.

It is natural for a woman to want to nurture and raise her children.  But we've told them that they should head out every day and go toe to toe with the men.

I can remember being a very young girl when women first started dumping their progeny into day cares.  I can also remember my mother saying how sad it was that a poor little baby, who may not be feeling well that day, had to be bundled up and hauled out in the cold so Mommy could go to work.

My mother was not some high school dropout who wanted to stay home and be Mommy.  She was a college-educated woman who understood the importance of her "mommy job". 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a brief marriage that ended in divorce, in part "due to the demands of her work." source   Associate Justice Elena Kagan has never been married.  Make of it what you will.

While some may say that the questions asked in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case before the Supreme Court were logical, they were also supremely unintelligent.  One has to ask themselves why in the first question Sotomayor asked, she referred to "another choice nobody talks about"? 

There's usually a reason no one is talking about it, Sonia.  Suggesting that a company dump their company-provided health insurance and shoving their employees onto a government-run, very expensive health insurance Ponzi scheme, or paying a fine of $2,000.00 per employee, could not be called compassionate, or even logical. 

Both Kagan and Sotomayor came out swinging because they feel that women should have free abortions and free birth control, which is not free, but is money taken from others to fund the sex life of women.  They are so steeped in the liberal stew of emotions that to consider the logic, or lack thereof, behind such an assertion never even crosses their minds.


Paul Clement, attorney for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, argued that employers with deep religious convictions were left with an unsavory choice: They could either offer a policy that included coverage for contraceptives against their beliefs, or they could exclude it from the coverage offered and pay an exorbitant penalty. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, answered with this:
“But isn’t there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than — than the cost of health insurance at all?  Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax."
Clement noted that the penalty to Hobby Lobby would amount to $500 million per year.
Not to be left out, Associate Justice Elena Kagan jumped in and said:
No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement. There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees. So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty by – in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice.
First of all, no employer should be forced to provide insurance.  The fact that they do offer health insurance is a holdover from wage and price controls during WWII.  When the War Labor Board ruled that wage and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance, many employers started offering health insurance to lure good employees.

It's time for that to end.  Let widget makers make widgets while not being burdened with overseeing health insurance for their employees.

People should buy their own health insurance.  It should belong to them.  And, no - that doesn't mean over-priced lousy coverage offered by the government.  It means real insurance that covers catastrophic events, and not visits to the doctor to treat a cold.

Secondly, Ms Kagan's offer is just ludicrous.  She's suggesting that Hobby Lobby just stop offering health insurance and hand over $2,000.00 per employee to the government to squander in any way they desire.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, being the upright Christians they are, would not do such a thing.  If they no longer offered health insurance, they most certainly would provide a salary high enough for the employees to purchase their own insurance.

Except that Ms Kagan is demanding that the first $2,000.00 of possible higher wages be handed over to the government.  

There are no winners here except the government. 

No comments: