In Missouri, ObamaCare Sucks Even Harder Than Military Service

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

So, you can be a conscientious objector, and gaff off military service, but:

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.

Will Orwellian wonders never cease?

As an aside, I don’t have a personal problem with a consistent pacifist who eschews military service. I do have a problem with a deadbeat coward who’s copping out. You have to know and have the moral courage to judge somebody to tell these two categories apart.

The purpose of the post is to call attention to the singularity-like pull of these entitlements, as Rousseau is mutated to say: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Spiffy.”

21 comments

  1. What bothers me is that the judge made her decision not through a review and consideration of the law, but ‘on the merits of Obamacare.’ She may as well have passed judgement based on the silkiness of unicorn manes.
    More malpractice by a lawyer, for the enrichment of lawyers.

  3. Where did you get that? From the link:

    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

    It’s black letter law. Federal laws take precedence, always have.

  5. I read the words of a Leftist correctly, and exactly.

    Judge Fleissig owes her bench to Senator Claire McCaskill, not the US Constitution or the people of Missouri. Judge Audrey Fleissig, by stating she was not basing her judgement on the merits of Obamacare actually did base her judgement on the merits of Obamacare, and how she will be given merit by her legal community. Missouri is as violently purple as it was in 1860.

    If Federal law always takes precedence, why have state governments? State and local legal systems?

  10. Excuse the OT, Smitty, but it looks like a bold tag was left open here “UPDATE IV (RSM): Yeah, I unloaded a few hundred words — including “hired liars” — about HuffPo & Co.” or a line just underneath so text following it is all boldface unless you’re following the Ace of Spades HQ Style-book ;^)

  11. Any law that violates God’s laws is null and void, regardless of what the government says or does. God’s laws trump man’s laws every time.

    People need to stand their ground. Judgement Day is coming.

  14. Like so much of constitutional law, it isn’t quite as black and white as you’d like it to be, Adjoran. Fed law is supreme only when passed pursuant to the US Constitution. Obamacare is not, was not, and never will be. What decisions like that do is simply ratchet up the contempt FedGov is held in, and that level is pretty high at the moment. I’m surprised that even an establishment shill like yourself can’t see what’s going on.

  15. Mrs. Smitty reserves that right, and Smitty will die if he doesn’t recognize said right. Them German wymins are best not crossed.

  17. The Constitution is also “federal” and it clearly says free expression of religion is a right guaranteed to everyone. The Obama administration, via Obamacare, has now said your religious freedom stops when you decide to work.

  19. Guess you missed the SCOTUS case last year, eh? Or have you declared yourself Supreme Dictator and Sole Arbiter of Constitutional Issues now?

Comments are closed.