In Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court held that there is a fundamental, individual right to marry. This right was reiterated in United States v Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), and Hollingsworth v Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652. Yet, there exists no ‘right’ to have someone else pay for your wedding, especially your employer or the government.
On the other hand, the Left believes that there is a fundamental right of 'access' to 'free' birth control whether it is paid for by taxpayers or employers. To demonstrate the insanity and inanity of this argument, let's just review some of the rights that you do and do not have. First, some of the...
'Rights' you do not have:
You have no right to Social Security, even if you pay into the programme for 50 years, Flemming v Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
You have no right to Medicare, even if you pay into the programme for 50 years, Heckler v Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984).
If your medical care is paid for with public funds, you have no constitutional right to whatever care [your doctor] using ‘the highest standards of medical practice’…may ‘judge necessary’… or to obtain that care ‘from a physician … of [your] choice,’ AAPS v Weinberger, 395 F. Supp. 125 (1975) (cert denied).
If you are on Medicare, you may not even have a constitutional right to use YOUR OWN FUNDS to pay for care that the programme deems ‘unnecessary,’ New York State Ophthalmological Society v Bowen, 861 F.2d 1283 (1988).
You have no right to a public education, San Antonio Independent School Dist. v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). Rather, IF the state provides public education, then it must…
‘...Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WHERE THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE IT, IS A RIGHT WHICH MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL ON EQUAL TERMS.’- Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
The holdings of Brown and San Antonio were reiterated in the infamous case, Phyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). In Phyler, the Court ruled that while there is no right to education, if provided, all must be allowed access to an education, including individuals in the country illegally. It is this case – IN A FOOTNOTE – that established the ‘anchor baby’ rule.
You have no right to housing, Lindsay v Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972).
You have no right to food. If the Federal government can prevent a farmer from growing food for his own family, then you have no right to food. See Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
You have no right to welfare, Goldberg v Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
You have no right to a job, see, e.g., Lincoln Federal Labor Union No. 19129, American Federation of Labor v Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., American Federation of Labor, Arizona State Federation of Labor v American Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (1949), Pickering v Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977); Connick v Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146 (1983); Rankin v McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987); Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006); Branti v Finkel, 445 U. S. 507 (1980), Craigmiles v Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002), Merrifield v Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008), among others.
You do not even have a constitutionally-protected right to vote, per se. The Court has recognised the fundamentality of participation in state ‘elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction,’ Dunn v Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972), even though ‘the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right.’ San Antonio Independent School Dist. v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).
But, somehow, the Left believes there is a constitutional right to ‘free’ birth control whether it is paid for by taxpayers or employers.
Rights that you do have:
Despite the hysterics and peddled falsehoods of the Left in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was, by the way, passed by a unanimous Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, passed 97-3 by a Democrat-controlled Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat President: Bill Clinton, let the record reflect that the decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores changed absolutely none of the following:
* Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which recognised the rights of married couples to use contraception and marital privacy, as well as the fundamental individual right to decide whether or not to beget or bear a child.
* Stanley v Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), which recognised an implied right of privacy.
* Eisenstadt v Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), which recognised the right of unmarried couples to use contraception and affirmed the fundamental individual right to decide whether or not to beget or bear a child.
* Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), or Doe v Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), which recognised the right to abortion and affirmed the fundamental individual right to decide whether or not to beget or bear a child.
* Carey v Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), which held that states cannot limit the dissemination of contraceptives to licenced pharmacists or prohibit advertisements of contraceptives, and the right of an individual, married or single, to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion in the area of personal decisions regarding intimate relations.
* Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), which reaffirmed the right to terminate a pregnancy and held that a woman does not need consent to have an abortion – even from her husband – while upholding parental consent for minors, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period.
* Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which reaffirmed the fundamental right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual activity even if they are of the same sex.
Contrary to that claimed by Hillary Clinton and others, the Court in Hobby Lobby did not – I repeat, DID NOT – hold in any way, shape, or form that an employer could dictate to its employees whether and/or which type of contraception they could use. Let me be clear:
ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. IN. BURWELL. VERSUS. HOBBY. LOBBY. STORES. GIVES. AN. EMPLOYER. THE. RIGHT. TO. INTERFERE. IN. THEIR. EMPLOYEES’. DECISIONS. TO. ENGAGE. IN. CONSENTING. SEXUAL. ACTIVITY. USE. CONTRACEPTION. GET. AN. ABORTION. OR. UNDERGO. STERILISATION.
If marriage, engaging in consensual sexual activity as adults, using contraception, deciding whether or not to bear a child are all fundamental, individual rights, why is it that only contraception is such a serious 'right' that it requires other people to pay for it?
Why shouldn’t taxpayers pay for everyone elses elaborate weddings?
Why shouldn’t employers pay for prostitutes so that their employees can have ‘access’ to ‘the fundamental right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual activity’?
If I want to exercise my ‘fundamental, individual right’ to ‘engage in private sexual activity’ under the implied right of privacy, why shouldn’t one of my least favourite Progressives be made to pay for my hotel room?
Perhaps, we can even find ‘a right to make Proggie pay for anything I want or I’m going to stomp my feet, whine, and hold my breath until I turn blue’ in the ‘emanations and penumbras’ of the Bill of Rights.
Dude, this whole ‘living Constitution’ thing could be soooooo much fun – for me.
For Proggie? Not so much...because I'm extremely high maintenance.