- - Wednesday, March 26, 2014

They surely didn’t intend it, but the three female Supreme Court justices struck a blow against diversity when they ganged-up against Hobby Lobby’s lawyer Tuesday.

During oral arguments on Obamacare’s contraception mandate, Paul Clement literally had not completed two sentences before he was interrupted by the trio, beginning with the “wise Latina” Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She was followed by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg before any of the men on the bench even warmed up their vocal chords.

It was ladies first.

They never questioned the central premise of the case: Why should government regulations compel a family-owned business to pay for abortion-inducing morning-after pills (which sell for $40 and less) under the pretense that those are too expensive for female employees to buy for themselves? Instead, Hobby Lobby faces a $475-million fine for not providing them. In the alternative, it can drop all insurance for its employees and be fined “only” $26 million.


Justice Sotomayor launched the interruptions by asking if employers could go beyond balking at providing contraceptives and also object to providing blood transfusions, vaccines, or products made with pork?

Justice Kagan soon chimed in with a marvelous summary of the philosophical pretense of liberalism: “So one religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

In other words, the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s seven owners are a threat to conformity — government-imposed conformity.

What is the opposite of conformity? Diversity.

In a country of 317 million people, with 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and almost 20,000 cities, where even left-leaning Ben & Jerry’s advertises more than 75 flavors of ice cream on its website — why must all health-care policies be uniform?

In a country where we choose supermarkets because they have a variety of fruits and vegetables; where soda aisles are packed with dozens of flavors; where we pick from multitudes of salad dressings; where pre-sliced lunch meats are smoked, baked, honey, oven-roasted, cured, mesquite, rotisserie, Black Forest, black pepper, Cajun-style and more, in either ham, chicken, turkey, beef, or mystery meat — why must all health-care policies be uniform?

Why are so many varieties of pickles found in the grocery aisles?

Why so many different breads?

Why so many different cookies?

They all violate Justice Kagan’s principle of uniformity — the goose-step that hides behind the label of faux diversity.

Why doesn’t government dictate just one style of everything and “simplify” the rest of our lives, like it does with health care? If Obamacare is supposed to save us from substandard insurance, shouldn’t “Obamacars” save us from substandard automobiles? And “Obamacurs” would make sure we have the best breed of dog.

Story Continues →