[Obama-appointee] Judge Audrey Fleissig overturns Mo. law on birth control coverage | AP

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down a Missouri law exempting moral objectors from mandatory birth control coverage because it conflicts with an insurance requirement under President Barrack Obama’s health care law.

click for bio

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. But Fleissig emphasized that she was taking no position on the merits of the Obama administration policy, which requires insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not say on Monday whether he would appeal the ruling, which was dated Thursday but not publicized.

The anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri distributed an email Monday denouncing the ruling as “a radical departure from America’s tradition of religious freedom” and imploring people to contact Koster’s office in support of an appeal. Some backers of Missouri’s law said the court ruling could result in churches and other religious organizations having to accept insurance policies that include contraception coverage.

I don’t answer to the state | Ezra Levant

Ezra Levant:  A portion of his argument before the Alberta (Canada) Human Rights Commission regarding biased prosecution and selective enforcement of his free speech rights. Classic and brilliant.  Here is is his YouTube channel with more parts of the testimony. Here is a wiki write up on Levant.  (H/T Jericho777)

Rant warning re “Does Reproductive Freedom Imply a Right to Free Birth Control? | Reason Magazine

RANT WARNING: I am so over this faux controversy, this conflation of “wants” with “needs”, “privileges” with “rights”, “health” with “behaviors”.  On the one hand this nonsensical issue is so illuminating of the poverty of the left / Obama / Obamacare / Socialism premises. On the other this is a painful distraction from real or truthful regarding things such as:

• The role of the Federal Government in personal needs and wants;
• Duties of others to meet needs and wants of the some;
• The constitutional constraints on Executive authority;
• The spinelessness of the Legislative branch;
• The reproach-ability of the Judicial branch (coming soon?);
• The long ignored overpopulation issue (wonder what Paul Ehrlich thinks of this state of affairs?);
• The recent synonymy of “pregnancy” with “disease”;
• The implied misanthropy and human-hating premise of the left and this contraception policy;
• The apparent supplanting of some non-existent ‘birth control debate’ for the ‘abortion debate” which has devolved into an electoral non-starter on which progressives have traditionally relied;
• How this relates to Obama’s low approval ratings among women and the coming election;

My head will burst if I think about this any more…Thank you Rush Limbaugh BTW.

via Reason Magazine… Supporters of Obama’s birth control rule conflate liberty with subsidies, insisting that you are not really free to do something (in this case, use contraceptives) unless it’s free. According to this logic, observant Jews do not have religious freedom unless the government pays for their kosher food, bloggers do not have freedom of speech unless taxpayers buy them computers, and Americans in general do not have a right to keep and bear arms if they have to pay for guns with their own money. By contrast, the religious institutions that object to the contraceptive mandate are not asking for subsidies; they are resisting them. They object to a regulation that forces them to pay for products and services they consider immoral. They want the freedom to offer their employees health plans that do not cover contraception and sterilization…