“A lot of women, me included, are sick of the ‘war on women,’” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO and California Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. “And we saw it in spades on Monday after the Hobby Lobby case. The women of Hobby Lobby had access to contraception through their company insurance plan before Obamacare; they have access to contraception — 16 forms of it — after the ruling. But somehow, you know, this is the long arm of business and the Republican Party reaching into the body of women. It’s ridiculous.”

Fiorina then pulled out a fortune she said she’d received recently in a fortune cookie.

“‘Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause,’” Fiorina read. “And that’s exactly right. The War On Women is shameless, baseless propaganda. There’s no fact to it. But it’s worked because it’s scared women to death. Enough.”

PROF. MARK PERRY BUSTS FAKE “WAR ON WOMEN” STATISTICS:

Bottom Line: The reality is that while women are at a 52% greater risk than men for being the victim of homicide by an intimate partner, men are at a four-time greater risk than women of being murdered overall, and are six-times more likely than women to be murdered by somebody besides an intimate partner. The “War on Women” graphic above undermines the seriousness of domestic violence and compromises the credibility of feminists by presenting incomplete and misleading data. Unfortunately, the “War on Women” rhetoric often becomes a “War on the Truth” by distorting and misrepresenting factual data, and this is a classic example.

And there are so many of those.

IT’S ALWAYS NICE TO MAKE TWITCHY.

any more than any other decision from SCOTUS has ever been.  ecause it wasn't ABOUT science and science had nothig to DO with it.  Just sayin.'  But of course I can't leave it at that.  So buckle up for a bit.

Let’s start with the law.  When a religious individual or institution claims that a government policy impermissibly burdens the exercise of religion, the essential truth of the religious objector’s claim is not at issue.  As Eugene Volokh helpfully explained in this post, “under RFRA, the question whether there is such a substantial burden should be based on the Hobby Lobby owners’ sincere judgment about what constitutes culpable complicity with sin, and not on the courts’ judgment.”  This principle was accepted by all of the justices in Hobby Lobby.  As Justice Ginsburg conceded in her dissent, courts must “accept as true” a RFRA plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs and are not to question “the plausibility of a religious claim.”  Rather, at issue in a RFRA case is whether the government policy at issue imposes a “substantial burden” on the plaintiff and, if so, whether the government can show a compelling interest in subjecting the plaintiff to the policy and that there is no less-restrictive alternative to meet the government’s interest.

Some critics note that current scientific evidence undermines claims that the four methods at issue prevent implantation. This is true, but also fails to substantiate the Hobby Lobby-is-anti-science claim.   The best scientific evidence available suggests that these forms of contraception rarely, if ever, prevent implantation, but the evidence is not-yet-conclusive and RFRA plaintiffs are hardly required to adopt prevailing scientific views to press their claims.  As Nicholas Bagley notes:

Scientists can demonstrate that the challenged forms of birth control almost never prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. But it’s very hard for scientists to prove that it can never happen.

That’s where religion comes in. Does facilitating the use of contraception that might conceivably prevent implantation, even if that risk is very low, contravene some religious precept? Science can’t answer that question. A religious person might think that it’s wrong—sinful—to commit an act that presents a risk, however remote, of something very bad. Should the courts be in the business of second-guessing those kinds of religious claims? Among other things, doing so raises the possibility that the courts would uphold mainstream religious values while dismissing religious views they thought were kooky.

Assuming, as the weight of current scientific evidence suggests, that it is exceedingly rare for any of these methods to prevent implantation or otherwise cause the termination of a fertilized egg, it is not unscientific to adopt a more precautionary position due to religious or moral concerns, and it is hardly “anti-science” for the courts to accept such a religious belief when evaluating a RFRA claim.  The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby advanced a claim based on religious belief, and that is how all nine justices on the Court treated it.

Science retains substantial authority in our political discourse.  This makes it appealing to tar one’s political opponents with an “anti-science” brush. Yet in their zeal to affix the “anti-science” label to the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby critics have gotten ahead of themselves.  Whatever the merits of other critiques of the Hobby Lobby opinion, this one falls apart.

over at Ricochet: the scientists agree

This was based on science — well, the science of the time — and was generally agreed to. For a complete and thorough history of government-based eating advice, read Nina Teicholz’s new book, The Big Fat Surprise.

I’m halfway through it, and it’s dazzling. It’s also a metaphor for how “scientific” ideas become religion:

…based on a nine-year-long investigation, Teicholz shows how the misinformation about saturated fats took hold in the scientific community as well as the public imagination, and how recent findings overturn these beliefs. She explains why the Mediterranean Diet is not the healthiest, and how we might be replacing trans-fats with something even worse. This startling history demonstrates how nutrition science has gotten it so wrong: how overzealous researchers, through a combination of ego, bias, and premature institutional consensus, have allowed dangerous misrepresentations to become dietary dogma.

 ---

But, for a moment, imagine that Teicholz is only half right. Imagine that the food pyramid is only half wrong. Imagine, for a moment, that the moderate, middle-of-the-road, squishy position is, simply, that it’s different for each person, that we all have unique body chemistries, that a high-fat diet for you might be the ticket to health and for me the ticket to the cardiologist. Imagine that.

And then ask the real question: why, then, is the federal government meddling in this at all?

go read it all ... and the comments aren't bad.

1. July 27, 2004: “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America. There's the United States of America.”

Obama vaults onto the national stage with a call for unity at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

2. Feb. 5, 2008: “We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored, that will not be deterred, that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest. Yes, we can.”

Obama voices his hopes in a speech on Super Tuesday during the 2008 campaign.

3. Jan. 20, 2009: “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” 

Obama takes the oath of office in front of a record crowd on the National Mall.

4. Sept. 9, 2009: “The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.” 

After a summer of protests against health reform legislation, Obama addresses Congress to make one more push. He acknowledges there has been opposition, but still hopes “both parties” can work together on the issue.

5. May 1, 2010: “As I found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of politics is not easy.”

Obama admits in a University of Michigan commencement address that he’s had a tough time changing politics. He calls for civility and listening to the other side.

6. July 11, 2011: “If each side takes a maximalist position, if each side wants 100 percent of what its ideological predispositions are, then we can’t get anything done.”

In a press conference amidst the marathon negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, Obama urges both parties to make sacrifices to reach a deal.

7. June 1, 2012: “I believe that if we're successful in this election, when we're successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there's a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.”

With hopes of a “grand bargain” on spending dashed and the election ahead, Obama tells donors in Minneapolis he hopes that if he wins reelection, Republicans will be more willing to work with him.

8. Oct. 3, 2013: “If you're being disrespected, it's because of that attitude you got that you deserve to get something for doing your job.” 

Obama’s criticism of the GOP grew more strident during the government shutdown. He mocked Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) for saying, “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

9. June 27, 2014: “They don’t do anything. Except block me. And call me names.”

Obama gives a harsh assessment of the GOP in Minneapolis as he accelerated his use of executive actions to accomplish things without Congress.

10. July 1, 2014: “Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff.  So sue me.”

At a speech in Washington, the journey away from the politics of compromise appears to be complete.

to one Hobby Lobby post per day.

Julia Morris, ostenisibly a woman, has written a goo article over at DL Magazine about WHAT THE HOBBY LOBBY CASE did not do.

 Go read it.  Clip an save!

Ron Paul wieighed in as well:

Opponents of the Court’s decision argue that Obamacare gives employees a “right” to free birth control that trumps the employers’ property rights. This argument confuses rights with desires. Successfully lobbying the government to force someone else to grant your wishes does not magically transform a desire into a “right.”

 

Redefining rights as desires to be fulfilled by the government also means that the government can modify, limit, or even take away those rights. After all, since your rights are gifts from government, there is no reason why you should object when the government takes away those rights for the common good.

Those who believe Congress can create a right to free contraception that overrides property rights should consider that the government may use that power to create and take away rights in ways they find objectionable. For example, if our rights are gifts from the government, then there is no reason why Congress should not limit our right to privacy by allowing the NSA to monitor our phone calls and Internet use.

The politicization of healthcare benefits is a direct result of government policies that not only encourage people to think of healthcare as a right, but to expect their employers to provide health insurance. Government policies encouraging over-reliance on third-party payers is the root of many of our healthcare problems.

Opponents of the Hobby Lobby decision are correct when they say that their bosses should not decide whether their healthcare plans cover contraceptives. However, like all supporters of Obamacare, they are incorrect in seeking to fix the problems with healthcare through more government intervention. Instead, they should join those of us working to create a free-market healthcare system that gives individuals control of their healthcare dollars. In a true free market, individuals would have the ability to obtain affordable healthcare without having to rely on government mandates or subsidies.

 

While liberals hail new job numbers as a vindication of President Obama’s economic policies, it is conservatives who should feel vindicated, said Charles Krauthammer on Thursday’s Special Report. Citing a recent National Review Online post on The Corner by economist Robert Stein, Krauthammer noted that the sharp drop in unemployment has coincided with the end of emergency unemployment benefits. Obama and the Democrats, who insisted that the benefits be extended, wrongly predicted that their expiration would come as a calamity to the poor. Instead, their end has demonstrably had “precisely the opposite effect.”

“These six months coincide with a decrease in the medium length of unemployment from 17 weeks to 13 weeks — the largest six-month decline in the length of unemployment ever measured,” he said. “Which means the real problem of long-term unemployment was a function of this anomaly of emergency-extended unemployment, which should never have happened, and whose end has contributed to this excellent result. The debate on that extension is over, and the conservatives were right.”

On the other hand, it’s a “conservative victory” that produces a better number for Obama.

I tagged this science, but it has some econ as well.  There might be math involved.  As usual, a smattering of offerings.

first up we have Krugman Is a Denier When It Comes to Climate Economics Consensus

opening graph:

Krugman opens his column in his characteristically confident style:

There are three things we know about man-made global warming. First, the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions. Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much. Third, the politics of action are nonetheless very difficult.

We can stop right there, and safely disregard the rest of Krugman’s column. Why? Because his first two points don’t fit together. If Krugman thinks immediate action “done right” wouldn’t slow economic growth by much, then delaying such action will not “be terrible.”

The we get to Chinal laughing at the POTUS: Message to the President: data shows ‘CO2 Reduction is Futile’  Lots of graphs.  Very understandable.  Go read the whole thing.

And finally, the Greenies economically devistating chickens are coming home to roost.   Holding Greenpeace accountable.

look for a few more of these tomorrow.

Chris Martin may have inadvertently created a new food consumer group.

He's not a vegan, vegetarian or carnivore exactly.

The Coldplay singer, and conscious uncoupler extraordinaire, told a BBC interviewer about his choice of meat products. Suffice to say his approach earns points for creativity.

I felt like you should only eat something that you would be able to kill. I don’t know why on earth I’m talking about this — I got to stop talking; this will be some kind of headline. Could you kill a fish? I wouldn’t like it, but I probably could, so I’ll eat the fish … A giraffe?   

Sounds like a plan, given the right gun. Blue whale cutlets, anyone?

for my new reader(s), this is a recurring theme.

SEXISM IN THE WHITE HOUSE: Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men, But Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff.

WAR ON WOMEN: Lib Ghoul Threatens To Rape Teen Daughter Of Leading Obamacare Critic.

#WARONWOMEN: Virginia Democrat Offers Reward For Nude Photos of Big Game Hunting Texas Tech Cheerleader Kendall Jones. “I’m sure she’s sent a nude selfie to some random guy out there who’s just waiting to expose her.”

MS Dem Party Chairman on Haley Barbour: My 'Mission in Life' Is to 'Catch That Big Fat Boar, Cut Him and Fry Him out for Lard'

I LOVE THE WAY THE LEFT WILL DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO MAKE ITS TARGETS SEEM TOXIC: AFSCME Ends Support For United Negro College Fund After Fund Accepts Koch Brothers Grant. This exposes just how sour and petty they’ve become — and, possibly, also how financially pressed.

this just in:Facebook Deletes 'Kill Kendall Jones' Page Under Grassroots Pressure