At Salon, Katie McDonough posted excerpts from court briefs filed in support of the “Hobby Lobby” suit that claims the contraception coverage mandate is a violation of the employers’ religious liberty. Since these are public documents I thought I’d just post it all here and give my reactions.

Beverly Lahaye Institute

Relying entirely on the 2011 IOM Report, the Government asserts that by increasing access to contraceptives, the Mandate will promote public health by decreasing unintended pregnancies. At the risk of stating the obvious, getting pregnant is not like catching a contagious disease.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is well documented that there is a strong correlation between use of birth control and reduced numbers of unwanted pregnancies as well as fewer abortions.

If the Government intends to broaden the definition of ‘women’s health and well-being,’ and thus the goal of the Mandate, to include non-health related concepts such as emotional well-being and economic prosperity,

Yeah, it’s not like pregnancy or other gynecological issues treated by birth control pills have anything to do with women’s health.

then it should likewise have considered the documented negative effects the widespread availability of contraceptives has on women’s ability to enter into and maintain desired marital relationships.

Men don’t want to marry women who aren’t breeders?

This in turn leads to decreased emotional wellbeing and economic stability (out-of-wedlock childbearing being a chief predictor of female poverty), as well as deleterious physical health consequences arising from, inter alia, sexually transmitted infections and domestic violence.

So if we let women use birth control, they are more likely to have out of wedlock children, get STDs, and get their teeth knocked out by thuggish boyfriends? And didn’t you just say that touchy-feely stuff isn’t a legitimate women’s health issue?

American Freedom Law Center

Thus, it has come to pass that the widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually — and has, in many respects, reduced her to the “mere instrument for the satisfaction of [man’s] own desires.” Consequently, the promotion of contraceptive services — the very goal of the challenged mandate — harms not only women, but it harms society in general by ‘open[ing] wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.’

Yeah, before 1960, when they invented The Pill, there were no cheating spouses or rape or prostitution or any of that stuff, and women were respected by men for their minds and good character. (/snark)

Responsible men and women cannot deny this truth.

Call me irresponsible, then. At least I’m not stupid.

Eberle Communications Group, Inc., D&D Unlimited Inc., Joyce Meyer Ministries, Southwest Radio Bible Ministry, Daniel Chapter One, U.S. Justice Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center

Stripped of its “evidence-based” facade, the IOM Committee Report encourages amoral recreational sex without reproductive consequences to be the optimal “quality of life” and “life course orient[ation]” for all American women.

(Raises hand) Does this mean that postmenopausal women are all supposed to be nuns?

The IOM Committee’s message is unmistakable. Female sexual activity without risk of pregnancy is to be encouraged by the contraceptive mandate, not only by making a wide range of contraceptives available, but by an education and counseling program designed to ensure that more and more women do not get pregnant unless “at the point of conception” they want to.

Yeah, it’s not like women should have any say about whether we get pregnant or not. Let us control our own reproduction, and the next thing you know we’ll be wearing pants and flying airplanes and demanding the vote.

This mandate is grounded in the “opinion” of the IOM’s 16-member committee that a woman’s “health and well-being” are adversely affected by the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

We’re all just cows. We’re supposed to drop our calves every spring and not make a fuss about it.

Westminster Theological Seminary

[The] government’s argument goes, the Mandate promotes women’s health because making abortifacients cost-free will enable women who want to be sexually active but do not want to be pregnant will avoid the risks of self-destructive behaviors by stopping pregnancies that may later contribute to their engaging in such behaviors.

I’m not even sure what that says. I think there’s a syntax error in there somewhere. And I take it all birth control methods are “abortifacients.”

The motivation by those using abortifacients is to avoid pregnancy, not to avoid their own supposed, possible, subsequent self-destructive behaviors that might attend an unwanted pregnancy.

In other words, if women didn’t make such a Big Bleeping Deal about unwanted pregnancy, everything would be just fine.

Therefore, by contending that using abortifacients will guard against the adverse health effects of self-destructive behaviors by avoiding pregnancy, the government, in effect, is purporting to protect women’s health without their knowing it.

This makes sense only if one assumes all women are colossally stupid.

The Mandate does not purport to protect women from discrimination based on their being women or based on their being pregnant. What it purports to do is to provide women a cost free way to avoid exercising an aspect of their womanhood — their unique capacity to bear children. Promoting gender equality in that way does not, and cannot, legitimize the Mandate. But beyond that, abortifacient use can never achieve gender equality when it comes to pregnancy avoidance. Abortifacients can terminate an existing pregnancy.

The vacuity is strong in this one.

Women Speak for Themselves

It is “demeaning and destructive” to argue that contraception helps women achieve equality. Most women aspire to and do rear children deserve social support.

Women should have equal opportunity only to stay barefoot and pregnancy and not have anything to say about it. Also, more syntax issues.

Make of all this what you will.

The House Budget Committee has released a “report” called The War on Poverty: Fifty Years Later. The report tries to argue that people are poor because of social welfare programs and proposes to “help” them by gutting the programs. Paul Ryan was behind this, of course.

It didn’t take long for scholars whose work was cited in the report to weigh in.

… several economists and social scientists contacted on Monday had reactions ranging from bemusement to anger at Ryan’s report, claiming that he either misunderstood or misrepresented their research.

In short, Ryan consistently edited out data that didn’t support his conclusions and sometimes just plain misstated what the scholars he cited had concluded.

Ryan wants us to believe he’s “helping” the poor by shredding the safety net so that they don’t become dependent or complacent. Paul Krugman reveals what a crock that is.

OK, do you notice the assumption here? It is that reduced incentives to work mean reduced social mobility. Is there any reason to believe this as a general proposition?

Now, as it happens the best available research suggests that the programs Ryan most wants to slash — Medicaid and food stamps — don’t even have large negative effects on work effort. . . .

. . .In fact, the evidence suggests that welfare-state programs enhance social mobility, thanks to little things like children of the poor having adequate nutrition and medical care. And conversely,of course, when such programs are absent or inadequate, the poor find themselves in a trap they often can’t escape, not because they lack the incentive, but because they lack the resources.

I mean, think about it: Do you really believe that making conditions harsh enough that poor women must work while pregnant or while they still have young children actually makes it more likely that those children will succeed in life?

Of course, the point is not to help the poor but to punish them. Obviously, if people are poor, it must be because they deserve it.

Do you remember the “Texas Miracle” that helped (s)elect George W. Bush as president back in 2000? He argued that his education policies as governor had caused a radical turn-around in Texas schools, with higher test scores and lower dropout rates.

And it turned out there was no miracle. The numbers looked good because school districts were falsifying test scores and misreporting dropout rates.

Well, for a while ow the Right has been touting the Texas economic miracle, with Gov. Rick “oops” Perry claiming that job growth in Texas proves his low-tax, low-regulation policies are good for the economy. Turns out that claim falls apart under close scrutiny, also.

The New York Times is reporting that Russia has seized Crimea, and the usual armchair warriors are thumping their chests and declaring that this must not stand. Exactly what the United States is supposed to do about it, short of declaring war on Russia, is not entirely clear.

Mr. Obama is under bipartisan pressure to take action to stop Mr. Putin. A dozen senators from both parties wrote him a letter Friday arguing that “the U.S. should make use of the tools at its disposal,” including targeted sanctions and asset seizure.

“Now is the time for U.S. leadership,” said one of those senators, Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida. “The U.S. and the European Union should take meaningful measures to demonstrate to the Russian government that military action against Ukraine is intolerable and will carry significant consequences for Moscow.”

None of the senators, however, outlined ideas not already on the table in the Situation Room. And besides, Mr. Obama needs Russian support in the midst of critical talks over Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear program.

“What can we do?” asked Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institution scholar who was the government’s top intelligence officer on Russia during the Georgia war when Mr. Putin deflected Western agitation. “We’ll talk about sanctions. We’ll talk about red lines. We’ll basically drive ourselves into a frenzy. And he’ll stand back and just watch it. He just knows that none of the rest of us want a war.”

Yeah, pretty much. But from now until the 2016 elections, and beyond, Republicans will be giving themselves bruises with all the chest thumping. It’s so cheap and easy to strike strong and resolute poses and make declarations about “leadership” when you actually can’t do anything.

Oh, wait, Congress actually does have the power to declare war, doesn’t it? So if they’re so keen to go to war, just tell them to write up a freakin’ war resolution and put it up for a vote. Take a stand, why dontcha?

On the other end of the scale, there are a few whackjobs out there who seriously believe President Obama somehow enticed Russia to attack Ukraine so he can start a thermonuclear war. See also this guy, but be warned there’s an automatic video that will play whether you want it to or not.

Linking to this without further comment, except to say it made me laugh.

Yesterday Republicans came out with a tax reform plan that Jonathan Chait says isn’t that bad, or at least, isn’t stupid. Chait may just be astonished that a Republican can so much as tie his shoes. He admits the plan isn’t likely to raise revenue (why bother?).

The New York Times and Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo point to an interesting feature of the Republican plan — in effect, it raises taxes in blue states. Red states, not so much.

It does this in two ways. One, it would o longer allow people to subtract what they pay for state and local taxes from their tax bills. Who pays state income taxes? Who pays substantial local taxes? Blue state dwellers and city folks, that’s who.

Families making $450,000 and above would pay 35 percent instead of the current 39.6 percent, which is a tax cut, like they needed another one. But the mortage interest deduction would be limited, to make up for it. The NY Times says,

One big break that would be affected is the mortgage-interest deduction. By limiting it to $500,000, the plan would hurt many middle-class families that must borrow more than that to afford a house in expensive markets like New York. Even worse, it would repeal the deduction for state and local taxes, a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult for “blue” states to provide the services and safety-net protections that they have decided are necessary.

Mr. Camp’s plan is open about this intention: “This deduction redistributes wealth to big-government, high-tax states from small-government, low-tax states.”

Huh? It doesn’t redistribute anything. The low tax-states are getting more federal benefits than they pay in taxes, courtesy of the high-tax states. You’d think they’d be thankful.