Takeaways From the Hobby Lobby Case

Corporations can’t pray, but they do have religious rights.
Hobby Lobby isn’t a person. It’s a chain of crafts stores owned by a religious family. And though the evangelical Green family objects to parts of the Affordable Care Act’s emergency contraception mandate, it’s not the Greens but the company that writes the check for employees’ health insurance. The first question the justices had to answer was this: Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? To many Americans, this sounds a little nutty. Does a craft store believe in God?

This court is rah-rah religious rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ court is shaping up to be pretty darn protective of that free exercise clause. Less than two months ago, the court ruled 5-4 that the town of Greece, N.Y., could regularly convene town meetings with sectarian Christian prayers. And in 2012, the court ruled 9-0 that a Lutheran school could fire a teacher who had some ministerial responsibilities, despite the government’s argument that her dismissal violated the Americans With Disabilities Act. In all these cases, the court sided with religious rights over other rights.

Hobby Lobby won, but the next company to cite religious objections might well lose.
The Hobby Lobby decision may certainly embolden religious employers to object to laws they consider burdensome. But that doesn’t mean they’re always going to win. The court made clear in this ruling that religion should not always trump the law, and said its decision applies to the contraception mandate, not other insurance mandates. The court also specified that an employer could not use religion to get an exemption from laws that prohibit discrimination — on the basis of race, for example.
The full article is available here

5 Torture Myths Debunked - Amnesty International

Torture is mostly practiced as a means of dehumanizing enemies.

Real life doesn't look like “24″ or “Zero Dark Thirty” – even in the U.S., torture is mostly practiced as a means of dehumanizing enemies. Amnesty International research shows that torture and other ill-treatment continue to be an issue in many countries. 

It also clearly shows that most victims of torture and other ill-treatment worldwide are not dangerous terrorists but rather poor, marginalized and disempowered criminal suspects who seldom draw the attention of the media and public opinion, either nationally or globally.

1. Torture is Mainly Used Against Terror Suspects and During War
The focus on torture and other ill-treatment in what the U.S. authorities then called the “war on terror” at the beginning of the century may have skewed the global picture.Torture continues in anti-terrorism contexts.

2. Torture is the Only Way to Get Information, FastTorture is a primitive and blunt instrument of obtaining information. Humane questioning techniques have proved to be efficient in obtaining information on crimes without the devastating personal, societal and legal consequences.

3. Some Forms of Torture Are Not That Bad
Torture doesn't come in levels. It is defined legally as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person to punish or obtain information. No torture is “lite.” All forms of torture are despicable and illegal

4. In Certain Circumstances, It Serves a Greater Good
Torture is never legal or acceptable. Countries that currently fail to punish it by law are violating internationally agreed standards. In legal terms, the absolute prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment is “non-derogable” – that is, it cannot be relaxed, even in times of emergency.

5. Only a Handful of the Worst Governments Use Torture
Over the past five years, Amnesty International has reported on torture or other ill-treatment in 141 countries and from every world region.  While in some of these countries, torture might be the exception, in others it is systemic, and even one case of torture or other ill-treatment is unacceptable.

The full article is available here

Why I'm A Pro-Life Leftist - Elizabeth Stoker

Human life is significant enough to allow wide latitude for. That is what necessitates the leftist part of my position.

Abortions are as much the result of a culture inhospitable to life as they are to the weak sources of support that arise out of that culture and the decisions of individual mothers.  It's useless and cruel to harass women seeking abortions at clinics. It does nothing to answer the echoing ethical question: What then should we do? It's not enough to say what we should not do.

The pro-life leftist position maintains that human life is so significant, so inherently valuable, so irreplaceable that it should be the central subject of political concern. To me, this requires a culture agreeing to put its money where its mouth is — that is, to provide robust support programs that render feasible the entire process of childbearing and childbirth, from pregnancy to child care to the total span of family life.

Programs that immediately come to mind include universal health care, which would obviate the incredible expenses of pregnancy, often costing in the thousands of dollars out of pocket; government-supported parental leave and policies protecting the employment of mothers; and a no-strings-attached child allowance.

A 2013 study featured in the journal BMC Women's Health found that financial reasons were the primary motive for 40 percent of women who sought abortions. In fact, financial concerns were the "most frequently mentioned theme" in women's explanations of why they needed an abortion. Other concerns included a lack of insurance, a lack of adequate housing, and a lack of stable living conditions. The study's authors note that for women seeking abortion, the decision is rarely simple; most women expressed multiple reasons that in culmination led them to believe they could not become mothers, and financial reasons were frequently at the core of those stacked concerns.

There is nothing especially mysterious about Finland, Sweden, or Norway that allows them to have such low child poverty rates — they merely choose, politically, to funnel public resources into preventing economic stress on parents and children. Accordingly, it's frequently the case that countries similar to the U.S. but with more robust social programs have lower rates of abortion: There are about 20 abortions per 1,000 women in the U.S., 7.8 per 1,000 in Germany, 14.3 in Denmark, and 11.1 in Finland.