Koerber-Audette: Hobby Lobby decision opponents do not speak for all women

By Holly Koerber-Audette

The Daily Advance

27 Comments | Leave a Comment

I must confess I am really angry as I write this column about the reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.

Comments

Interesting...

When the Supreme court ruled in favor of obamacare all we heard was how great that desision was---now all we hear from the left is how boneheaded they are now just because they rulled in Hobby Lobbys favor!

I'll take a stab at that.

I'll take a stab at that. This is five Catholic Supreme Court justices ruling together. I know ZERO Catholic couples who adhere to Catholicism's edicts on premarital sex, birth control, sterilization, etc. Why should the rest of the country be subject to rules that most Catholics don't even follow? Practice what you like, just let everyone else practice what they decide is best for them.

You're implying that the 5

You're implying that the 5 justices that sided with Hobby Lobby did so based on their religious beliefs. Well, if that's the case, with the current make up of the court (6 Catholics and 3 Jews), any gay rights or abortion issues are doomed. I don't think that's necessarily the case. One Catholic and 3 Jews felt differently than the majority. Many well known Catholics are pro choice -- (Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden).....

"Many well known Catholics

"Many well known Catholics are pro choice..." You are making my point for me! Catholics can't even get it together to decide what is right or wrong in regards to reproductive rights and everyone else should be left out of that dysfunction .

So.. Catholics should not be

So.. Catholics should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court? How about Jews? Muslims?

Miss the point much?

Miss the point much?

"Catholics can't even get it

"Catholics can't even get it together to decide what is right or wrong in regards to reproductive rights and everyone else should be left out of that dysfunction . " And your point is? The way I read what you wrote --- The people that are other than Catholic don't need to have Catholics deciding these issues --- because Catholics are dysfunctional with regard to reproductive rights. If I missed your point, please let me know what it is. Thanks.

Mr. Lehmann

Mr. Lehmann, why do you so often turn to ugly, personal attacks when someone disagrees with your position? Do you really think that is an acceptable form of civil discourse? In my view, it takes away from the issue at hand and eliminates any credibility you may have had. Respectfully, James Lunt

Mr. Lunt,

I've attempted to answer your question, only to be censored by the head blog Nazi at the Daily Advance. They don't like what I say, so they delete my comments. Unfortunately, as far as I know, they only censor conservatives. No matter how whacko, a liberal might blog, those comments are perfectly fine. We'll see how long it takes for them to delete this. What I attempted to tell you was that MS Melanie was the first to call my friend Holly Koerber Audette disingenuous. I've known Holly for a long time and I can tell you she in not disingenuous.

T.H.I.N.K.

Some schools ask the students to consider if their words are true, helpful, inspiring, necessary, or kind. If not, then don't say/write them. Maybe if you used that criteria, you would be censored less. Nobody called this columnist disingenuous. Using Nazi is not necessary or kind. "Loser" really? 12 year olds know better than to say that.

Dear casual,

thanks for the lecture for 12 year olds. If you follow the blog of MS Melanie referring to Mrs. Koerber Audette's previous columns you will see where MS Melanie did in fact not only call Mrs. Koerber Audette disingenuous, but implied she was uninformed. I replied that I've known Mrs. Koerber Audette since 2000 and know she is neither disingenuous nor uninformed. Coucilman Tony Stimatz who also knows Mrs. Koerber Audette well, agreed with me and very succinctly expressed his views. If I use Nazi or loser for emphasis, I use it appropriately. If you don't like it, that's ok. I've heard far worse from the other side, but the Daily Advance I consider to be the other side, and they don't mind how outrageous and without fact the comments made by liberals are, as long as they agree. I don't think I was censored for the use of Nazi or loser, but possibly for asking Melanie James, Esq after a lengthy pontification of her legal credentials, if she represented her husband in his legal case, an honest question and one that can be answered in the public domain if she doesn't answer.

A blog will only have power

A blog will only have power over you if you read it.

How astute casual,

how astute.

you need help

There must be something misfiring in your brain. You continue to rant off topic and I think I know why. Discussing Hobby Lobby was not your intent. You wanted to assert yourself and you are threatened when women challenge you. Your method of control seems to be malicious attacks on someone's character or their family which has absolutely nothing to do with Hobby Lobby or other content of the article. What is wrong with you? If Tony Stimitz is really your friend tell him I said you need an intervention. You have some serious problems. Now go ahead and jump all over me, I could not care any less. Tina Lunt

Ms Tina,

from your blog, I don't consider you worthy of being "jumped all over". Besides, I think Trimman77 has done a fine job of that already. Councilman Stimatz is my friend. If you need to converse with him I recommend you do it directly. In regards to your mistakenly perceived notion that I feel threatened by women who challenge me, what I was concerned about was MS Melanie stating that Holly Koerber Audette was disingenuous and implied her to be uninformed. I know Holly quite well and know she is neither. I don't think MS Melanie has ever met MS Koerber Audette and is in fact the one disingenuous and uninformed by making such an unfounded statement. As for you, MS Tina, I can honestly say I really don't give a damn.

Gee!!

Tell me Ms Lunt, what exactly are you doing? Are you "on topic"? Its apparently OK for you to chastise someone but its inappropriate for someone else to call a liberal to task for blowing things out of proportion. Typical liberal thought process, and in your case also a feminist who thinks men are "out to get them". Melanie has been a name caller from the first time being a poster to the DA. I know that from personal experience. When you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

The Supreme Court Clarified

"The left went haywire claiming the ruling has all kinds of broad implications." The Supreme Court clarified that the ruling applies to ALL forms of contraception. "A Supreme Court ruling is always limited to the very specific circumstances that the case before it includes." Um, no it's not. I'd suggest that you read up on precedent and analogies. There is nothing to "distinguish" this case from a case involving a corporation "closely held" by a Jehovah's Witness family who wants to exclude blood transfusions from coverage. Likewise, a corporation closely held by Christian Scientists could exclude psychiatric meds. I'd love to see one of you "distinguish" The Jehovah's Witness or Christian Science case. I don't think you can.

Again

You are not arguing the facts, no one is being denied any birth control! PERIOD! The issue is how its paid for! The Supreme Court upheld the freedom of religion act passed by a Democrat controled house and senate, then signed into law by BILL CLINTON!The thruth shall set you free!

I guess we can all speculate.

I guess we can all speculate. The truth is, we'll jus have to wait and see.

Thank you, Sparatus

We certainly will have to wait and see.

I know where Holly graduated in her law school class.

I know little about Ms. Melanie's claim to fame other than her blogs. Why does she consider herself an authority on Supreme Court decisions? How many cases has she argued before the Supreme Court? Or any court, for that matter?

Mr. Lehmann

Mr. Lehmann, I have thought about this off and on all day. A part of me prefers not to respond because the discussion should be about facts and analysis, not credentials. I have never even intimated that Holly's credentials are "less than." On the other hand, you have defamed my legal credentials and I cannot let that stand. For you edification, I graduated with honors, 3rd in my class. I passed the Bar on the first try. I clerked on The Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. I clerked at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (which means I drafted quite a few appellate opinions). While I have not argued before the US Supreme Court, I have written briefs that were presented to the the US Supreme Court. I have argued before the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (with Justice White sitting by designation), the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. I have also argued before a host of state appellate courts, both intermediate and final. I am also published on the issue of jurisdiction in Indian Country as well as a small piece on securities fraud. Just because I decided to return home to a small town practice does not mean that my career was "less than." I hope this satisfies your hate-filled curiosity.

sparatus & Lehmann,

good for the county. Please vote for John Woodard as commissioner in Nov. To Bill Lehmann, please get back in the game if you can stomach it, somehow.

What is truly troubling is

What is truly troubling is the mainstream media not pursuing or reporting the truth. When Hillary Clinton made her inaccurate statement, why did the interviewer not interject. Why did the interviewer not say "But, Mrs. Clinton Hobby Lobby has provided 16 forms of contraception to their employees since well before Obamacare became law. This includes birth control pills and most other commonly used forms of contraception." Why does the media allow Clinton's inaccurate comment stand unchallenged? The main stream media is one of the biggest threats this country faces. Liberals and progressives can do no wrong. If they do, it isn't reported. The media investigates nothing that government does (unless it's something those on the right do). The goal of the media is to keep an uninformed public and protect liberal thoughts and values.

sparatus

What you stated as the goal of the media in this country is absolutely correct and I say it's right at the core of the downfall of our once great nation. We no longer have a professional, non biased media, but one which has a self promoting agenda. How are journalists able to sleep at night? Pray for our country.

It's 0129. Time for Melanie to get to bed. Maybe it will clear

her head. I always love it when some loser attorney tries to explain what the Supreme Court means in their latest decision because she disagrees with it.

Oh, Good Lord!

I can't even begin to address this tonight. I will tomorrow, but in the meantime I'd suggest you read the Supreme Court's clarification about what the opinion actually covers.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments