The rhetoric used to defend some political positions is often mystifying to me. The reaction to the “Hobby Lobby” SCOTUS case that was handed down today is a good example. (I have not yet read the decision per se, and will not comment on it in detail until I have.)

The rhetoric constantly used to condemn this SCOTUS decision abuses both the language and the truth to make political points. The standard talking point of PPACA fans is to say that Hobby Lobby is “denying access” to “vital health care” for its employees.

This is simply untrue. No one has ever proposed denying access to anything. The only issue has been who would pay the bills. For contraception, the costs are low enough that access for even relatively poor people is not a serious question. Yet, the logic of proponents is that if the cost is not zero, some people will not avail themselves of the “option”.

Those who are the supposed beneficiaries of this federal contraception mandate have reason to be insulted by this. They are being told that any cost is more than they can bear, and that they do not care enough about their own health to spend their own money on it.

By the logic of those who insist that employers must pay, access is being “denied” for anything not paid directly by the employer. This is clearly absurd. Normally employers pay their employees a salary, and the employees choose what to buy. Employers do not choose how you spend your salary by buying for you your food, transportation, clothing, entertainment, and housing. By the logic of the Obama administration, every employer who does not provide these things cost-free to employees is “denying them access”.

In a rational world, this sort of abuse of language and logic would be the subject of a light hearted comedy skit, not presented as serious policy discussion.