Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights.

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.





Men are financing the state’s assaults… on men



Mike Buchanan, Party Leader of Justice for Men and Boys, argues that the state advantages women over men.

Men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK – women only 28%. British men collectively paid £64 BILLION more income tax than women in 2012/13, yet the state relentlessly assaults the interests of men: never the interests of women. In our party’s public consultation document, we list 20 areas in which the state – though its actions and inactions – advantages women (and/or girls) over men (and/or boys).

Feminist politicians and civil servants systematically advantage women at men’s expense, but the mainstream media rarely report on the extent of their manipulations, and it can be difficult to ‘join up the dots’. Let me attempt to join a few of them up for you.

Feminist politicians and civil servants systematically advantage women at men’s expense.

Two-thirds of public sector employees are women, and women use the ‘positive action’ provisions in the 2010 Equality Act to preference women over men when recruiting and promoting, where women are ‘under-represented’. While men could conceivably be preferenced over women on the same grounds, they never are.

Men and boys have been disadvantaged by an increasingly feminised education system. Then they’re disadvantaged in entering certain employment fields by government initiatives, and grants directed to institutions which preference women over men when recruiting and promoting staff (for example research institutions).

30+ years ago, the fact that the majority of university students were men was deemed ‘a problem to be addressed’ by feminists and other left-wing social engineers, who were then (as today) found in key positions in government, in all political parties, and throughout the civil service. The secondary school system has become ever more feminised. In 1970, 45.4% of secondary school teachers were women; the proportion had risen to 62.3% by 2010.

The secondary school system has been manipulated to advantage girls over boys, and 60% of undergraduate students today are women. Why is this gender balance not ‘a problem to be addressed’? Because gender equality was never the motivation for increasing the proportion of female university students. Gender equality narratives are smokescreens for feminists’ quests for female supremacy, driven by their misandry (the hatred of men).

Four out of seven unemployed people are men, and as I have previously highlighted, unemployment is known to be a bigger driver of suicide among men than women. The single largest cause of death of young men in Britain today is suicide. It would be perverse for the government to spend taxpayers’ money encouraging women into historically male-dominated professions, yet that’s exactly what’s been happening for decades, whilst virtually nothing has been spent encouraging men into female-dominated professions.

Let’s consider women studying STEMM subjects – science, technology, engineering, medicine and mathematics. Huge sums of taxpayers’ money have been spent encouraging women into studying STEMM subjects and choosing STEMM careers. However, few women return to STEMM careers after having children, possibly an indication they weren’t happy working in those fields, and were happy to leave them?

For a long time, there have been sustained efforts to drive up the proportion of women in medicine, and 70% of medical students today are women. It costs £250,000 – £500,000 to train a doctor. Large parts of the NHS are in crisis today, partly because compared with male doctors, female doctors are more likely to:

–          quit the profession altogether,

–          work part-time, whether or not they have children,

–          opt for the least stressful lines of work, notably general practice (50% of GPs today are women),

–          decline to work in the most stressful areas, notably A&E,

–          decline to work unsocial hours,

–          retire earlier.

It’s been estimated that the NHS gets around half the number of working hours over a career from the average female doctor, compared with the average male doctor. One highly predictable consequence of the influx of female doctors has been a slump in the staffing capacity of the NHS, a problem which has been ‘solved’ through the recruitment of large numbers of foreign doctors. Many of these doctors are drawn from poor countries which financed their training, and which can ill afford their absence.

There are fields where the government’s efforts at driving women into formerly male-dominated lines of work almost beggar belief. While women have entered medicine in large numbers, few have chosen engineering. Some of the reasons are obvious. Compared with medicine, engineering is:

–          less well paid,

–          less secure (private sector),

–          more likely to entail working in unpleasant conditions,

–          less flexible working hours,

–          less human interaction and appreciation from patients / clients.

Legions of taxpayer-funded social engineers are driven by the delusional conviction that men and women are intrinsically the same. They ignore gender-typical preferences, and always seek equality (or superiority) of outcomes for women. We come to the ultimate manifestation of their thinking. At Brunel University, female postgraduate engineering students are eligible for an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender. The grant is worth considerably more than the annual gross income of a person working full-time on the minimum wage. Male-to-female transsexuals (and those ‘in transition’) are also eligible for the grant.

At Brunel University, female postgraduate engineering students are eligible for an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender.

So there we have it. Female students have to be bribed to do the course, while male students don’t. Does anyone seriously imagine these women are motivated to work as engineers? For every woman who does the course, a man is denied a place. Let’s remind ourselves that unemployment is the single largest cause of death of young men.

It’s not only the government which seeks to drive women into male-dominated professions at the expense of men. Professional bodies are pursuing the same objective. Some months ago my party publicly challenged Nick Baveystock, director of the Institution of Civil Engineers, over the matter.The vast majority of ICE’s members must surely be men. Our challenge remains unanswered.

It’s often claimed we ‘need’ more female doctors, engineers, company directors etc. – but do we? I leave you with a link to a video which explores an intriguing question:

If we ‘need’ more women in boardrooms, do we ‘need’ more white sprinters in the Olympics 100 metre final?