News

Silicon Valley's congressional leaders condemn Supreme Court's ruling on contraceptive coverage

Silicon Valley's congressional delegation has rebuked the Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling that upheld the Trump administration's right to allow employers and universities with moral or religious objections to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose decried the ruling as an assault on women's health.

"This week's decision means virtually any corporation or institution can claim a religious or moral exemption to deny birth control coverage to employees or students," she said. Essentially and unconscionably, at least in the short term, women will be left to the mercies of their bosses in deciding what constitutes their essential health care."

Rep. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto shared similar sentiments in a Wednesday news release. The congresswoman, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, said the decision could result in upwards of 126,400 women immediately losing access to cost-free contraception.

"During a global pandemic and economic downturn, the impact of this ruling will be even more devastating as women are forced to choose between paying for their health care and paying for rent, groceries, or childcare," she said.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

In a post on his Twitter page, Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont also criticized the court's decision. Khanna wrote that the ruling further demonstrated the need for Medicare for All, which he said would provide free birth control to all residents regardless of their employment status.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, with two justices from the court's liberal wing- Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer- voting with their more conservative counterparts.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which praised the Little Sisters, an order of Roman Catholic nuns who run more than a dozen homes for the elderly.

"They commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless," he wrote. "But for the past seven years, they-like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today's decision-have had to fight

for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

After reaching out to several local religious

organizations for their reactions to the ruling, none responded.

But the president of San Jose chapter of the American Association of University Women, a nonprofit that works for women's equality through advocacy and education, said their organization was dismayed by the court's decision.

"We support a woman's right to reproductive health without the burden of cost," said Peg Carlson-Bowen. "...Free coverage of reliable contraception allows women to strive for professional and educational equality."

In March, Carlson-Bowen said the AAUW joined other concerned groups in submitting an amicus brief to the court that shared objections to allowing an employer or university to limit access to birth control coverage.

Amicus briefs are legal documents filed by non-litigants who wish to share their advice or beliefs about a case with the court.

Planned Parenthood officials also expressed disappointment with the court's ruling.

Lupe Rodriguez, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, which is headquartered in San Jose, said all women deserve the right to decide for themselves if or when they want to become pregnant. For some patients, Rodriguez said access to affordable birth control could even be a matter of life and death.

"There are women who could face high-risk pregnancies and pregnancy prevention is critical to maintaining their health," she said.

Rodriguez said some of the most effective birth control options, such as the IUD or birth control implant, can cost more than $1,000 without insurance coverage. She expects the ruling will lead to a greater financial strain on Planned Parenthood, as more women will now be looking for affordable options. But the director explained that her organization will not be dissuaded from its mission.

"We remain incredibly committed to providing birth control to our patients," she said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Silicon Valley's congressional leaders condemn Supreme Court's ruling on contraceptive coverage

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 1:36 pm

Silicon Valley's congressional delegation has rebuked the Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling that upheld the Trump administration's right to allow employers and universities with moral or religious objections to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose decried the ruling as an assault on women's health.

"This week's decision means virtually any corporation or institution can claim a religious or moral exemption to deny birth control coverage to employees or students," she said. Essentially and unconscionably, at least in the short term, women will be left to the mercies of their bosses in deciding what constitutes their essential health care."

Rep. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto shared similar sentiments in a Wednesday news release. The congresswoman, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, said the decision could result in upwards of 126,400 women immediately losing access to cost-free contraception.

"During a global pandemic and economic downturn, the impact of this ruling will be even more devastating as women are forced to choose between paying for their health care and paying for rent, groceries, or childcare," she said.

In a post on his Twitter page, Rep. Ro Khanna of Fremont also criticized the court's decision. Khanna wrote that the ruling further demonstrated the need for Medicare for All, which he said would provide free birth control to all residents regardless of their employment status.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, with two justices from the court's liberal wing- Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer- voting with their more conservative counterparts.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which praised the Little Sisters, an order of Roman Catholic nuns who run more than a dozen homes for the elderly.

"They commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless," he wrote. "But for the past seven years, they-like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today's decision-have had to fight

for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs."

After reaching out to several local religious

organizations for their reactions to the ruling, none responded.

But the president of San Jose chapter of the American Association of University Women, a nonprofit that works for women's equality through advocacy and education, said their organization was dismayed by the court's decision.

"We support a woman's right to reproductive health without the burden of cost," said Peg Carlson-Bowen. "...Free coverage of reliable contraception allows women to strive for professional and educational equality."

In March, Carlson-Bowen said the AAUW joined other concerned groups in submitting an amicus brief to the court that shared objections to allowing an employer or university to limit access to birth control coverage.

Amicus briefs are legal documents filed by non-litigants who wish to share their advice or beliefs about a case with the court.

Planned Parenthood officials also expressed disappointment with the court's ruling.

Lupe Rodriguez, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, which is headquartered in San Jose, said all women deserve the right to decide for themselves if or when they want to become pregnant. For some patients, Rodriguez said access to affordable birth control could even be a matter of life and death.

"There are women who could face high-risk pregnancies and pregnancy prevention is critical to maintaining their health," she said.

Rodriguez said some of the most effective birth control options, such as the IUD or birth control implant, can cost more than $1,000 without insurance coverage. She expects the ruling will lead to a greater financial strain on Planned Parenthood, as more women will now be looking for affordable options. But the director explained that her organization will not be dissuaded from its mission.

"We remain incredibly committed to providing birth control to our patients," she said.

Comments

Robyn
another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 2:39 pm
Robyn, another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 2:39 pm
12 people like this

They sound like Trump criticizing the Court for following the law as he has on so many occasions. It is their job.
If one disagrees with an employer's politics, do not go to work there.


roaksinri
another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 2:45 pm
roaksinri, another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 2:45 pm
3 people like this

Irrational Humanism: The Reasoned Application of a False Worldview

Mark R. Rushdoony

Our culture has become increasingly irrational in the last half-century, and the pace of this trend seems to be accelerating. We have long been accustomed to the charge of racism being misused as a political weapon but in recent days the charge was made that even the original Mary Poppins movie was racist. If the current doom-and-gloom climate predictions (once a coming Ice Age, then global warming, now a generic “climate change”) are not absurd enough, we are offered the absurdity of “transgenderism.” We live in an age where entertainers make it a point to offend and politicians offer the panacea of socialism, despite all historic and contemporary examples of its destructiveness.

The Enlightenment’s Humanism: Reason, Not Revelation

Some of the absurdities we hear are likely not even believed by those who shout them. Their point is, in fact, to shout, to demand and obtain the cameras and microphones (I think the reference to Mary Poppins would be an example). In doing so, they deprive others the spotlight. Beyond that demand to be heard, however, there is a very real sense of mission and purpose behind these seemingly bizarre claims.

Humanism replaces the supreme authority of God with that of man. This supremacy may be seen as individual or collective. A person who says, “No one can tell me what to do,” is positioning himself as the ultimate authority. Such a humanist will be anarchistic in his thinking. Most humanism views the authority of man as a collective. The highest collective voice of man is the state, so most humanism gravitates toward statism.

Because it sees man as “in charge,” humanism reacts to any transcendent authority, such as the God of Scripture, with contempt. They truly believe that because they are in control, they can repudiate all limitations, which they see as a vestige of belief in a transcendent God. The transcendent God of Scripture is replaced with their own immanent authority, so they act like gods because they have effectively declared themselves to be such. They may not claim the title of god but they assume the prerogatives of God. They are in charge. They believe they can decree their own truth and condemn those who do not fall in line with their agenda. They see no limit to their authority or prerogative. They believe they can change the world and that they must rid it of the “outdated” vestiges of a Christian worldview, beginning with its ethics.

Humanism has itself disintegrated into increasing irrationality in the modern era. The humanist response to the Reformation was the Enlightenment, which emphasized reason over the former movement’s stand for revelation; so many textbooks on Western history have referred to the Enlightenment as the “Age of Reason.”

The assumption that reason existed in the first place was a borrowed one, a carry-over from the earlier Christian age. The new rationalistic worldview of the Enlightenment merely created a model that presumed a world of law and order. This “natural law” was built into the universe and available for man to discover by his reason. Natural law and rationality were attributed to a distant “first cause” referred to as “God,” but the name was merely a philosophical construct unrelated to the Jehovah of Scripture. The true supreme being of Enlightenment thought was man.

Darwin: Revolution, Not Reason

The reliance of humanists on their “God” as first cause was increasingly seen as a concession in the nineteenth century. They were borrowing from Genesis because they did not have a worldview of their own that could give an overall context to their humanism.

The work of Darwin shattered the humanist’s rationalistic thinking and moved it in an entirely new direction, although still a man-centered one. Instead of a reliance on a “natural law” built into the universe by God to be discovered by the rationality of men, Darwin proposed a cosmos controlled by neither a sovereign nor by law, but by the properties of matter alone. Darwin saw chaos, chance, and randomness as man’s context, not law or reason.

Darwinism challenged humanism as much as Christian teaching because his was an entirely new model, a new worldview based on a more consistent rejection of Biblical revelation. Darwin proposed that reason and rationality came very late to man’s evolutionary history as products of civilization. Man’s true roots, and the dynamic of the entire evolutionary scenario were chaos and survival of the fittest. It was this violence, not natural law, that had advanced man.

Humanism, after Darwin, embraced the new mythology of man’s violent pre-history. Chaos and revolution were seen as a rejuvenating means of forcing the next stage of human development. Darwin’s theory became crucial to the Marxist justification of violent revolution, and all subsequent justification of violence. Such things as traditions, truth, and status quo were seen as social efforts that retarded the necessary evolutionary dynamic of constant upheaval.

Modern political and legal theory has also been co-opted by Darwin’s view of the regenerative power of revolution. Activist politicians and judges tend to side with every so-called “progressive” social trend. According to Darwinist theory, societies are like organisms: they adapt and change, or they stagnate and die. Tradition, including old Constitutional restrictions or social mores, is associated with stagnation and death, so Darwinian legal theory embraced radical change to eliminate old, regressive ideas and allow the evolution of social order. The “progress” of progressivism is via an intentionally created chaos out of which it is assumed a brave new world will emerge, unfettered by the traditions of the past. To the extent those traditions represent a Christian ethic or perspective, the push for change is especially vehement. Nothing is seen as more stagnant and repressive than Christianity and its “backward” look at ancient revelation as truth.

Confusing Times

We live in a world that believes in the nobility, and even the urgency, of destroying any tie to the past because it has a faith that whatever it destroys will be replaced with something better. While we seek godly reconstruction on old foundations, they believe in the urgency of their destruction.

A faith in evolution is thus a faith in progress by destruction, and regeneration by revolution. The irrationality of humanism represents a Darwinian belief in creating new men and a new order by anarchy and violence. Its “rational” behavior is in terms of Darwin’s mythological past and a faith in it as man’s salvation.

Any worldview based on a mythological past is going to fail. The future belongs to the Kingdom of God and His Christ. Neither the anarchist nor the statist revolutionary will create a better order because hope based on Darwin’s mythology is doomed to fail.

Humanism will fail because it is antithetical to the advancing Kingdom of God. It will fail because its anarchism makes it self-destruct. It is not overcoming because vandals cannot rule; it is imploding.

The Future

We cannot see a moment into the future, but we are called to live in terms of one we must believe by faith. Because we cannot see the future, God has, throughout history, revealed enough of it for men to believe that the future is never one of chaos or revolution but of His sovereign providence and grace. The people of Jesus Christ have been given a greater view of the future than any in history. This perspective should be the crux of our eschatology. Arguing the minutia of John’s Revelation misses the larger message that Jesus is victorious, and the victory will one day be obvious and every knee will bow and every tongue confess it.

The irrationality of humanism is the reasoned application of its false worldview, its faith in man. The only response to the insanity of humanism is the reality of man’s accountability to the Creator God, His grace to us in Jesus Christ, and the future we have in His love.


Robyn
another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 3:46 pm
Robyn, another community
on Jul 14, 2020 at 3:46 pm
Like this comment

For whom do you speak? What is your point?
"We" is not me as described in the essay.


JustSayIn
Monta Loma
on Jul 15, 2020 at 12:47 pm
JustSayIn, Monta Loma
on Jul 15, 2020 at 12:47 pm
Like this comment

Re: roaksinri

I'm a card-carrying atheist, but Mark R. Rushdoony hit it right on the head. Take the religious context out and it's still works.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Jul 15, 2020 at 8:42 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Jul 15, 2020 at 8:42 pm
2 people like this

We heard last year - although I did not check - that Bullis Charter could not give preference in admission to nearby Mountain View school children without changing its charter. Normally, we see a war of words between LASD advocates and Bullis Charter advocates. Nothing yet. Maybe they are tired of Trump or the other virus-at-large: Covid-19. Maybe they are wondering and worrying about when schools can resume with in-person instruction. Perhaps no new schools will be needed.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Jul 15, 2020 at 8:44 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Jul 15, 2020 at 8:44 pm
2 people like this

Sure, that last post belongs under a different story. But will anyone even notice?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.