Because they are fanatically dedicated to the idea that democracy requires subjugating women in the name of liberty, five "conservative" justices wrote a law yesterday creating a public option for health care. See, here.
If you think there is a "genuine debate about the proper scope of the federal government" and if you think "conservatives" believe in small government, then the emergency injunction issued by the court on behalf of Billy Graham College is logically impossible. It simply can't be true that the most principled of principled small government advocates just said that they have the power--contrary to the clear language of Congress--to order the federal government to provide or "facilitate" the provision of contraception to college employees.
But that, is what the court did on July 3 in the case of Wheaton College v Burwell, where the College objects to the requirement under the ACA that they inform a private health insurance company of their religious objection to contraception:
But the applicant has already notified the Government— without using EBSA Form 700—that it meets the re- quirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act.
In fact, the last clause describes something that does not exist. Congress has never passed a law giving the Federal Government the power to "facilitate" the provision of contraception to employees of Wheaton College. What the ACA does say is that all employers who provide health insurance to their employees must choose a plan that provides preventative care, free of charge. The suggestion that the government provide this insurance was shot down as communism. No government insurance, only private insurance. That's the law.
Yet some Americans don't like that law because, they claim, preventative care is against their religion. The technical term for such people in Europe is "fucking lunatics." In the United States they are known as the defenders of religious freedom.
Because we hold them in such high regard, the President of the United States created a special rule that says "fucking lunatics" do not have to follow the law that was written by a democratically elected legislature. In deference to their religious objection to preventative care, they just have to fill out a form that tells an insurance company that they want no part of the preventative care. Done. Just writing their name on a form allows these "fucking lunatics" to break a law that everyone else has to follow.
To the chagrin of progressives everywhere, Obamacare contains no public option. The government doesn't provide preventative care under the ACA. There simply is no such thing as the "full contraceptive coverage under the Act" that is provided by the government. Neither does the law allow the government to "facilitate" such coverage. The "fucking lunatic" exemption form, following the wishes of Congress, is processed by private actors.
If, on Monday, Obama had declared that he was going to "facilitate" contraceptive coverage for Wheaton College employees, he would have been savaged by "conservatives" in Congress for his "kingly" decision to exercize a power not granted to him by Congress.
Nonetheless, the "small government conservatives" on the Court just ordered that Obama not only can, but indeed must take those exact unlawful actions in order to execute the law that Congress actually did pass. Why? Because the "fucking lunatics" not only claim it is against their religion to provide preventative care, they say it is against their religion TO FILL OUT A FORM THAT SAYS "it is against our religion to provide preventative care" because we know that the company that gets the form is going to do something we don't like.
Why is this a death warrant for the Republican Party? Because, at the end of the day, every American woman under age 70 thinks the "fucking lunatics" are FUCKING LUNATICS. If your religion says poor women must choose between having sex and having children they cannot afford to feed, then there is something wrong with your religion.
Americans will tolerate a great deal in the name of religious liberty, but no one thinks Christian Scientists (a religion that teaches all disease is caused by God and cured by prayer) should be allowed to let their children die from an untreated bacterial infection.
Likewise, forcing babies on women guilty of having human sexual desires in the name of "freedom" is patently ridiculous. And the idea that self-styled "umpires" can literally re-write a law to do the exact opposite of what Congress wanted to do is simply indefensible. It, by definition, deserves no respect.
Conservatives once again have proven that they have no ideology. They have an identity centered on families run by the father. They are scared to death of a future America where our wives and daughters cannot be controlled. Such a future is, in their minds, a world where they don't exist. Wheaton College v Burwell is a clear signal to women that there is no "small government" principle that conservatives won't cross in service of their subjugation.
UPDATE 7/11/2014: Famous law professor Mark Tushnet rips me off w/o attribution at Congress Adopted Single Payer.
