Lefty Con Law Scholar Admits What Pro-Lifers Already Know: HHS Mandate Leads To Forcing Companies To Provide Abortion Coverage

posted at 7:05 pm on April 2, 2014 by Duane Patterson

One of our regular segments on the Hugh Hewitt Show is one we call the Smart Guys, where two Con Law professors, John Eastman of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine Law School, debate legal issues –  John from the right, Erwin from the left. This week was the first time since the oral argument in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood cases last week that the audio has been available. Hugh focused on the questioning by Justices Kennedy and Breyer in particular. What follows is part of that conversation that was very illuminating to us. The full interview will air on Thursday’s program due to the breaking news of yet another horrible shooting on the base of Fort Hood, for which thoughts and prayers are naturally offered.


So after Justice Breyer hinted at the nub of what the real question at stake here is, Justice Kennedy bored down and Dean Chemerinsky had to admit something mainstream media has been feverishly trying to avoid – disclosing that these cases are abortion cases much more than they are about birth control. If the Court rules against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood here, there’s no limit to what the government can mandate closely-held corporations have to do, including providing for the termination of life.

As SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston said to Ed Morrissey filling in for Hugh a week ago, the Court is highly unlikely to want to wade into the very muddy waters of deciding once and for all whether or not corporations have religious rights under the 1st Amendment. And their questioning in oral argument didn’t lead anyone to believe they really wanted to set that precedent and split the 1st Amendment into pieces, with corporations having speech rights but not religious liberty rights. So if the 1st Amendment remains unchanged in the outcome of this decision, the default position is that corporations, especially closely-held corporations as exemplified in these cases, can indeed run their business in keeping with the faith of their ownership and/or stockholders.

The McCutcheon decision today showed the conservative majority on the Court wasn’t about to weaken the speech part of the 1st Amendment, and there’s every possibility that if the decision is crafted narrowly, Justice Breyer might make it a 6-3 decision to keep the Free Exercise Clause intact as well.

This is still a Constitutional republic. We don’t do government agencies dictating through regulation who has to provide and pay for abortions here. At least not yet.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Chemerinsky was crr6’s legal boo.

Murphy9 on April 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM

This is still a Constitutional republic. We don’t do government agencies dictating through regulation who has to provide and pay for abortions here. At least not yet.

Maybe we do and maybe we don’t. They’ll let us know in a little while, citizen.

How’s that republic looking now?

Axe on April 2, 2014 at 7:15 PM

We don’t do government agencies dictating through regulation who has to provide and pay for abortions here.

Naw, just health care.

Ca97 on April 2, 2014 at 7:16 PM

With the Court saying before that, basically, Corps are people ,too and subject to the freedoms of the Ist Amendment, how can it order that they can ‘speak freely’, but can’t practice their closely held faith in all aspects of their (corporate) lives? Am I wrong?

vnvet on April 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM

The Obama Party is desperate to force people to pay for abortions for one reason only: abortions are a cash cow for the campaigns of Obama Party politicians. Planned Abortionhood exists for no other reason than to funnel cash into Obama Party coffers.

They want to take tax dollars and turn them into Obama Party campaign funds.

They want to take people’s honest earnings and launder them to support sick perverts like Harry Reid.

The next Republican Congress should pass a law making it illegal to charge for abortion services. Watch the Abortion Party shriek as their abortion clinics can no longer chop up babies into campaign cash.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Breyer is far to the left, no way will he be joining any conservative opinion. That is the same wish casting I saw before the obamacare decision. Not only did no liberals join in striking down obamacare, but chief traitor Roberts joined them.

Raquel Pinkbullet on April 2, 2014 at 7:20 PM

…it’s a tax?

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Love the Private Hudson quote/screen cap…LOL

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM

This is still a Constitutional republic.

Thanks for the laugh.

Myron Falwell on April 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Justice Kennedy bored down and Dean Chemerinsky had to admit

Bored down? C’mon, man.

BuckeyeSam on April 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Fascinating case – and it establishes something if he gets fired. He will be able to sue the IRS – after all, it was only due to a leak regarding the National Organization for Marriage’s tax return in 2008. He’ll have standing – and there won’t be a thing the IRS can do about it.

Kitsapbass on April 2, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Yeah, but does it make sure unwanted babies are neglected and thrown in the trash after a botched abortion? Because Obama loves him some of that.

John the Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM

The Free Exercise in the First Amendment is very clear, and if Congress cannot or will not control the President, as is their duty, the Constitution itself is in danger. Leaving everything up to “The Secretary will decide” is not the way the Constitution was designed to work. Get your dog back on the leash, Congress, or face the consequences.

America has not yet given up rule of itself and if the hired hands won’t do it, new Congress critters may get the hint.

If not, we still have the Second Amendment to protect our God-given rights under our current Constitution.


DublOh7 on April 2, 2014 at 11:51 PM

abortion is like the holy grail to liberals

and they always say we are violating their rights if we just decline to pay for thier murder of innocents

they keep saying its thier body, their privacy thier choice

umm . . no my wallet my privacy my choice

let your boyfriend pay for it.

sniffles1999 on April 3, 2014 at 7:34 AM

Didn’t they as much as admit that in oral arguments before the S.Ct.? IIRC, the response to the abortion question was something like, it’s “unlikely” that the government would interpret the ACA to require employers to pay for abortions. Unlikely? Really? Anyone with half a brain can see where that’s going.

mbs on April 3, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Eastman is awesome, and a great professor…which is why major networks try to stay away from him.

Difficult for any liberal attorney to argue for his cause with Prof. Eastman on the other side.

right2bright on April 3, 2014 at 9:38 AM