Dana Loesch rips feminist leader: ‘I’m going to educate you…’

During an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity on Tuesday, Dana Loesch sparred with Patricia Ireland, a leader in the feminist movement and former president of the National Organization for Women, over the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case.

While Ireland attempted to make the case that the decision denies women basic healthcare needs, Dana was simply not having it. She reminded the former NOW president Hobby Lobby had agreed to provide 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under Obamacare. The four the company objected to include the “morning after pill” Plan B.

“They were providing birth control to their employees, who they pay way above minimum wage by the way and gave Sundays off, they were doing this before Obamacare was even a thought,” Loesch said. “Women who work for Hobby Lobby, they still have access to birth control as provided by Hobby Lobby.”

Ireland argued she does not believe “a commercial business has religious views,” which is why the Court’s decision that Obamacare cannot force for-profit, closely held companies to violate their religious beliefs by paying for emergency contraceptive coverage that could lead to abortions is null and void. That sentiment led Dana to question whether Ireland actually understood the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“That’s a horrible misunderstanding of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Dana said.

“I’m quite familiar with religious freedom,” Ireland replied.

“Apparently, you’re not,” Dana shot back. “I’m sure Patricia is an educated woman, but it does women a disservice when we have women speaking out on this topic and they don’t seem to understand the facts at hand — so let me set something straight here.”

Dana explained that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, businesses must prove to the government their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights are being restricted or violated.

“The hypothetical slippery slope, ridiculous argument that, ‘Well they could just deny all health care,’ that wouldn’t actually be supported by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Dana said. “So it’s a bunk, fallacious argument that we are wasting time discussing.”

  • Jeff Lambeau

    One of my favorite Stephen Colbert quotes: “Yes, corporations are people, except unlike people, they only have one body part: a middle finger”

    • Aaron

      Would that include comedy central? Or just the conservative ones? Save your breath or rather, keystrokes. Those are rhetorical.

    • RaptorSixOne

      Oh those nasty corporations. If it wasn’t for them, we could all be sitting around the campfire discussing this after scrounging for our daily food, rather than discussing it here using the products and services they provide.

      • Jeff Lambeau

        You’re missing the point. I’m not saying corporations are bad… I’m saying that they are conglomerate entities and industries. They are NOT “people”, they don’t live under the same rules as American citizens.

        • RaptorSixOne

          The Supreme court has ruled not that corporations are people, but that corporations are associations of individuals and therefore are entitled to certain rights guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution. You may not like it, but it is the law of the land. This isn’t a new concept, some of the Court’s rulings go back to the early 1800’s, that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals.

          • BlueMN


            “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. blah blah blah associations of individuals blah blah blah” Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)

        • CNW

          Actually corporations are “persons” legally. They are a “juristic person” by law. Merriam-Webster defines a “Juristic Person” as “a body of persons, a corporation, a partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties —called also artificial person.” …”subject of RIGHTS and DUTIES.” So… same rules. Especially when the corporation is simply a legal projection of a single, or small group of like minded people. The corporate values reflect the values of that small group of individuals. Corporations are formed for financial liability structures, concerns, and protections; not exclusion from values.

        • Anonymous

          What, exactly, makes up a corporation? Martians? Of course, they’re people. What rules do they operate under that you don’t?

          • BlueMN

            Good question. For example, if I dump a load of toxic waste in our local stream, I’d go to jail, be held liable for the entire cost of the clean up which would mean losing my house and all my personal savings. If a corporation dumps toxic waste into my local stream, no one goes to jail, it’s not a physical being, they might get hit with a fine that they can easily absorb, so all the executives and stockholders keep their big shiny houses and lose nothing, even if the corporation goes bankrupt. Not being held liable is one of the biggest reasons to incorporate… that and the tax dodge it gives them.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, you probably would not go to jail if you dumped a
            load of toxic waste and would probably not pay as much as a corporation would either. Also, I would rather have a company providing jobs than shut it down, as long as they correct the problem. As far as the individual that directed the dumping, that person should be prosecuted.

    • Andrew

      Give me a break. It’s a PRIVATE BUSINESS started by one person. The federal government shouldn’t have any say in how he decides to run HIS business. What about the small mom and pop shops? They should be forced to pay for someone’s abortion? Wake up and smell the coffee and stop buying everything the left wing media is spewing.

  • ugottabkiddingme

    Stick to the facts. We have equal protection under the law (Constitution). It amazes me that someone that is so representational of the women’s movement (Ireland) is so uninformed about the facts in the case. Or could it be that she simply chooses to misrepresent the facts for political reasons? There’s just no such thing as honest discourse with a progressive. The fact remains that 16 of 20 listed ‘contraceptives’ were not in question…simply the 4 that are considered ‘abortifacients’. If your deeply held religious belief is that life begins at conception, then helping prevent conception is not a violation…but aborting a life after the moment of conception would be. The grind here is this: if a woman chooses to use one of those 4 abortifacients, then there’s no reason whatsoever that she can’t pay for it herself. (or even her partner…) I mean, honestly…how many times should a woman need that anyhow – especially if they are using the contraception that is provided? You can’t tell your boss to stay out of your bedroom but expect him to pay for it for you. The hypocrisy is astounding.

    • bob machaffy

      gays think the freedom of religion goes against them, go figure,
      2 females can’t create babies, nor can men

      • Christina Jeremy

        Emіly.­&nbsptrսe­&nbsptհat­&nbspMaոսel`s­&nbspst○rі­&nbspіs ­&nbspɡ○○d…­&nbsp○ո­&nbspwedոesday­&nbspі­&nbspɡ○t­&nbsp a­&nbspt○р­&nbsp○f­&nbsptհe­&nbspraոɡe­&nbspLaոd­&nbsp R○ver­&nbspRaոɡe­&nbspR○ver­&nbspafter­&nbspearոіոɡ­&nbsp $4946­&nbsptհіs­&nbsplast­&nbsp5­&nbspweeks­&nbspaոd-eveո­&nbspm○re­&nbsptհaո,­&nbsp$10­&nbsptհ○սsaոd­&nbsplass ­&nbspm○ոtհ.­&nbsptհіs­&nbspіs­&nbspaсtսally­&nbsptհe­&nbspm○st-с○mf○rtable­&nbspj○b­&nbspі’ve­&nbspever­&nbspd○ոe.­&nbspі ­&nbspaсtսally­&nbspstarted­&nbspfіve­&nbspm○ոtհs/aɡ○­&nbspaոd­&nbspрretty­&nbspmսсհ­&nbspіmmedіately­&nbspbeɡaո­&nbsp t○­&nbspbrіոɡ­&nbspհ○me­&nbspm○re­&nbsptհaո­&nbsp$84, ­&nbsp рer-հr.­&nbsp,…&nbsphttp://Googleprojectjob&#x32&#48&#x31&#52rateMJEscJDqY

        ☰☰☰ ☰�☰☰ ☰☰☰ ☰☰�☰ ☰☰☰

        • norm

          Lying idiot. Range Rover and Land Rover are two completely different vehicles.

          Stop spamming and get a job, jackass.

      • joe michael villa

        Yet two females can create a family and so can two men.

    • Curtis Mitchell Rasmussen

      Wrong. She is FULLY educated about the issue, the Constitution and the real story on Hobby Lobby.

      She and the others with N.O.W. CHOOSE to hate religion and freedom based on conservative principles. This isn’t about uneducated hacks. This is about fully educated partisans and American Apostates who “hate” what is right as a fundamental way of living, thinking and behaving.

      The best part of this is that she WAS schooled in being able to express herself credibly and logically by a VERY capable and articulate woman. Watching Sean trying to officiate was a bit comical. Heck, let ’em go at it.

      • ugottabkiddingme

        That was sort of my sarcastic intent.

      • AmpShop

        Yeah I don’t know. She might be educated on the issue but she doesn’t understand it. Are you saying she completely understands and thus has a different agenda?

  • Frances Clark

    just because you run a for profit business does not mean you have to give up your own religious beliefs!! You should not have to pay for people to be killed in abortion!! Calling it “health care” is a lie, it is horrible for the health of innocent children! If you don’t like the health care package work somewhere else!!!!

    • Gary Kloncz

      Correct. How about when CVS decides to no longer sell cigarettes. It’s applauded. CVS states that it’s against their ethics to sell harmful products when they are in the business of helping people through pharmaceuticals. But, that falls into the left’s beliefs, so those ethics are acceptable. But, these are not. CVS will give up to around $1.5 Billion USD for that decision. Using Ireland’s arguments, businesses shouldn’t have religious views, i.e. ethics, so why isn’t she mad about CVS making an ethical decision and impacting her portfolio. Because, it doesn’t fit her ideology, which is a farce and based on lies.

      • John G

        There is no Federal Law mandating that for-profit corporations sell cigarettes. Your argument is invalid.

        • Smack A Lib

          The birth control portion is not a part of the Federal Law, it was a mandate not voted on just inserted after the fact. Your argument is invalid. Educate yourself.

          • John G

            Sorry. There is no “mandate” requiring for-profit corporation to sell cigarettes. Gary’s argument still doesn’t hold water, nor does creating a semantical argument invalidate mine.

        • Gary Kloncz

          It’s purely about whether for-profit companies can have ethics or religious beliefs. They can and will so long as the leader of the company who establishes policy is supported by the owners (read CEO and shareholders) or in Hobby Lobby’s case, the Green Family. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we want the federal government dictating to private businesses what their ethics should or shouldn’t be? If you do, I would suggest you have an ideology not based on freedom.

          • John G

            I don’t want the Federal Government to dictate ethics OR religion. But your argument still isn’t valid. That’s all I’m pointing out.

          • Anonymous

            No your argument is not valid, I’m rubber your glue… wahhhhh !

        • Jeff

          And the ONLY reason there WAS federal law about ObamaCare and the contraceptives in question is because Obama unilaterally installed it outside of the lawmaking process. Buy yourself a clue.

          • John G

            What’s your point? I’m just saying that Gary’s argument is not logical, i.e. it does not stand to reason that CVS choosing to not sell cigarettes is somehow akin to Hobby Lobby choosing to limit medical care afforded employees under the ACA.

          • norm

            Considering that Hobby Lobby’s policy was in place before ACA was even thought of, you are dead wrong. Making it a mandate after the fact in no way invalidates the comparison.

        • ChiTownGal

          It was a mandate issued by kathleen sibilius & HHS. That’s how it came about. Do some research, NOW.

          • John G

            Is that a response to my comment? I don’t see how it applies to what I said.

          • Anonymous

            John G, I think you have a point but I think the comparison is good for another reason. It shows how government can arbitrarily force its will upon us.

          • Guest

            John G, it is completely valid. It wasn’t about mandating. It was about 2 different businesses, each refusing to do something over their view of ethics. One was rejected that right and made to look evil for standing up for their beliefs, the other was praised for it standing up for their ethics. The cigarettes was an example, not the context. It’s for the very reason that you were incapable of catching that, that makes yours invalid.. HOW can you read and yet not understand…

          • Brian Bahbah

            John G, it is completely valid. It wasn’t about mandating. It was about 2 different businesses, each refusing to do something over their view of ethics. One was rejected and made to look evil for standing up for their beliefs, the other was praised for it standing up for theirs. The cigarettes was literally only an example, not the context of the conversation. It’s for the very reason that you were incapable of catching that, that makes yours invalid.. HOW can you read and yet not understand…

    • Jon Galt

      The left hates JOB CREATORS. I guess they would all rather starve. And soon, they might! Something to look forward to anyway…

      • eagle keeper

        eagle keeper, Wasn’t it Margret Thatcher who said “socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money”? So with over 300k people a week becoming unemployed (thanks to big O and his FAILED economic polices) how will the more please liberal big government folks going to survive? Maybe they will self destruct. One can hope.

      • Anonymous

        STUPID MORON! Your ignorance is disgusting.

    • eagle keeper

      eagle keeper, You know what is amazing? I have noticed that when talking to a liberal and presenting them with a gem of truth, they say no. They seem not to be flexible enough to hear an opinion that differs from theirs. The woman who was the past president of now was asked by Sean H. if she knew that Hobby Lobby still and has always provided their female employees with 16 out of the 20 birth control methods. Her answer was no. When they want to argue a point they do so on emotional response rather than the FACTS. No wonder so many liberals walk around in a fog. Or I guess one might say, (I am a liberal) and before we start this conversation I want you to know it is either my way or the highway.

      • Anonymous

        You gem of truth reeks of fecal material.

  • Wanda J Napier Goodman

    That is so “out there”. Corporations provide jobs for people. They pay taxes. They improve the economy. Seriously? “middle finger”? What is expected of corporations? Should they pay outrageous wages, cover all medical costs, have a hardy pension plan; the list can go on and on. The reason corporations are formed and exist is to make the person or person creating them money. You know “the money” that is expected to be paid out to employees and their benefits. If there is no profit, then why go through the hard work to start a business? And this has nothing to do with all that anyway. They didn’t want to pay for 4 of the 20 drugs. 4!!!!! The opposition is just not liking the religious part. Why can’t you just except that. People do have beliefs that are dear to them.

  • liberalssuck

    She didn’t like Dana correcting her as she did exactly what she was complaining about. Stupid libtards. So Hobby lobby covers 14 forms of birth control, however they object to the morning after and others that aborts the baby. I am ok with that. Funny their battle cry is if it saves one child, yet they murder millions of them. What maroons libtards are.

    • Anonymous

      16 not 14 just fyi

      • liberalssuck

        My bad! So I have a new signature thanks to The Revolution ” “Hell hath no fury like a liberal denied a government goodie”

        • Ken Pabers

          “Hell hath no fury like a liberal denied a government goodie” that’s awesome and true

          • liberalssuck

            I saw that and made it my new sig.. it is so true!! Thanks to The Revolution!!

  • patriotgames

    Solved nothing. I wish Dana would learn the George Will approach to debate. Listen and let the opponent be heard then destroy with verbal wit & skill. Unfortunately, they both sounded like “banging gongs & cackling hens.” Dana, Take a lesson.

    • patriotgames

      And I might add the condescending approach doesn’t win over anyone who may be “on the fence” in the issue. Dana, you sounded like a “far-right loon”, which you are not.

      • Tessa Davis

        This whole debate is ridiculous! I don’t understand why anyone should be responsible for paying for contraception except the individual and/or their partner. Access is so easy. Go to the health dept and get it for free. A woman shouldn’t need the morning after pill on a regular basis and if she does then she is being sexually irresponsible. In that case, why should anyone be required to pay for her mistakes over and over and if it is that persons belief that life begins at conception then they are contributing to the demise of a human being. No one should be forced to participate in murder. This problem has never been a problem or an issue until recently. Why does everyone suddenly feel entitled to everything all the sudden. There are many more much bigger issues that need to be dealt with other than arguing about birth control pills! Sex isn’t mandatory! Well, maybe it is lol but not a legal one!

        • Leslie

          Because the left believes and teaches their cult-like followers that they should be able to do anything, anytime they want, without any consequences and that everything they want should automatically be provided to them.

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately, there is a time limit on the discussion. If Dana and Sean had not cut in, Ireland would have taken up all the time, and there would have been no opportunity to refute her idiocy. I’m not a fan of the format where they talk over each other to make their points, but it seems to be the fashion these days, rather than like the days of old, of which you speak.

    • Tessa Davis

      I would love to actually hear a real debate between the two rather tan a snippet!

    • PeterMoss

      You nailed that patriotgames. Unfortunately, Loesch’s gimmick is to be the snarky, indignant young woman who takes no prisoners, which is what one resorts to when they lack the intellect to take the high road.

      • Anonymous

        Right. Dana is snarky and indignant compared to liars like Kathy Ireland. The high road is the one that has the facts and wins the debate.

      • Curtis Mitchell Rasmussen

        Naw. You guys continue to believe that the audience will be sympathetic with fairness and level-headedness.

        Ireland and her crew care NOT about fairness. Fairness will NEVER win them over. They’re Apostates of the Truth. They would say the “sun isn’t shining at noon day on a clear day” and argue it to the death.

        The white hat or George Will way of doing it LOST the election when our squeaky-clean, Mitt, didn’t have the gumption or the congruence to take on a fight and win.

        • Anonymous

          I think he was trying to be honorable and use some civility and fairness. Unfortunately, his opponents (and that includes the ‘moderators’) don’t care much for those qualities.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, George Will’s approach has been SO successful teaching his left wing colleagues over at the Washington Post anything.

    • Curtis Mitchell Rasmussen

      The George Will approach… I admire it.

      But, we’re dealing with an Immoral or Amoral group of people. It’s no longer a debate with gentlemen it’s a war with disciples of anarchy and evil.

      Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and Dana’s fire won or at least singed Ireland’s laughable defense of her accusation.

  • Anonymous

    There is another fact to this case…. the contraception part of the mandate was enacted by a single, unelected, individual. This is not part of the original law, it’s part of the law that was added by princess sebelius. Our elected representatives and our president did not sign off on this particular mandate. I’m pretty sure the constitution wins this argument. And the LAW that was signed that actually protects hobby lobby was signed by President Clinton.

  • Max Lightning

    Rights are not FORCED, they are choices. Freedom is based off of choice.

  • Andrew

    The left looooves to use the word “corporation”. This is their way of misrepresenting the facts and creating an emotional reaction. Sorry but that crap only works with the progtards.

  • Blair Wallace

    This whole issue was brought about by the dumbocrats voting for a bill that they didn’t read. The bill states that the HHS secretary has absolute power to make policies and set the guidelines for process and procedures. The law is seriously flawed and doesn’t give Congress oversight over any of its parts. The only way to stop these off the wall issues is to sue the Fed. like Hobby Lobby did. Waste of time and money.

  • BAHL

    How is birth control a part of Health Care? It has nothing to do with keeping anyone man or woman healthy and alive. If someone can prove to me that their life would be in danger if they did not take the pill I may change my mind but for now….

    • Anonymous

      Certain birth control medications are used to provide hormonal balance in certain women. I know a woman who has a thyroid problem and uses a birth control medication to correct it (due to the hormonal corrections made). When she and her husband decided to start a family, she had to go “off the pill” so to speak in order for pregnancy to occur. While pregnant, her body “magically” provided the right hormones to keep the thyroid operating correctly. Once they are finished having children, she will probably have to go back on the medication to maintain stability. The birth control medication was NOT one of the abortifacients discussed in the case.

      • bob machaffy

        some women use birth control to regulate their period
        also many medications are used for other illnesses besides
        the one it was intended for.

        • anand

          And they are all still covered. Only ones that are not covered are the morning after pills and certain UIDs

      • Leslie

        I’ve been on thyroid meds for 20 years. I’ve been going to a specialist for the last 8 years. I have never once heard of someone with thyroid problems taking BC to correct it. Progesterone or Estrogen is not the same as T3 and T4 so wouldn’t do anything. There are other things like PCOS that someone might take BC for, but not thyroid issues. Now thyroid levels have to be checked a couple extra times during pregnancies. I’ve had 6 pregnancies (2 were miscarriages) and thyroid levels fluctuate during them due to weight changes, but that’s about it. BTW, the IUDs objected to can cause spontaneous abortions in women who get pregnant with the IUD in place. That’s one of the things that HL objected to.

    • Sargonarhes

      The liberal mind set has this as a health care issue as part of quality of life. They want to be able to go out and fornicate as much as they want without consequences.

      When all is said and done that’s what it pretty much amounts to.

  • Donald Bly

    It appears that Patricia Ireland doesn’t think that the constitution is a law…. here’s a hint witch…. it is the supreme law of the land.

    • William Menikheim

      What the left is really avoiding on this issue is that the Religious Freedom Restoration act was voted on and passed by a Democrat Congress and Senate and voted into law and signed by, none other than, Bill Clinton. Toadd another laugh to it is that Chuck “U” Shumer introduced the bill in Congress and the Democrat Libtards jumped all over it. Now, it is an inconvenient law that impedes the left’s agenda. :-)

      • Anonymous

        Or is it UpChuck?

      • Anonymous

        Wow, William Menikeim. I did not know that, very interesting. Thanks.

        • Leslie

          yep, 1993. I posted a picture today of it. Interesting.

  • ErikandKathy Muller

    Is the only thing important to liberals is a person’s genitalia. Birth control..homosexuality..get a life!

    • BlueMN

      Makes you wonder why neocons who claim to want less government, want to control a person’s, especially a woman’s, genitalia so much.

      • Anonymous

        To what sorts of control are you referring?

  • Beth Rose-Acor

    Schooling the Liberals doesn’t help. This woman had that look of “you didn’t enlighten me one bit” its the same frightful stare I see again and again on every Liberals face when you show them bonafide proof of something…… they are just absolutely appallingly stupid

  • Anonymous

    Liberals must all attend a symposium on how to do “the face.” They all have down pat that snide, condescending sneer on their faces as they pretend to smile and shake their heads as if saying, “no, you poor, unenlightened people. You don’t know what you are talking about; I am far above you in my understanding; how sad that you are not able to understand our truth.” Ugh, makes me want to smack the smile off of them. Of course I am a believer (but not a saint!), so I won’t.

  • Anonymous

    Face it, the whole contraception topic has always been a Democrat fund raising and base agitating tactic designed to win elections through lies and fraudulent misrepresentations. PERIOD. Expecting Dems to tell the truth about it is like expecting a tiger to shed its stripes – ain’t gonna happen – ever.

  • Warren Wilson

    I used to know several people in middle management of the National Organization of Women. The biggest bunch of man-hating, intellectually dishonest, lying sacks of crap you could imagine. Really, you could not imagine.

    • Anonymous

      I can believe it. After all, this is also the same group that wouldn’t utter a peep when a piece of toe jam like Bill Maher uses the vilest sexist obscenities to describe conservative women. They are very selective about which women they choose to stand up for.

  • Benjamin Schubert

    “Well this violates federal law.” Even though this mandate wasn’t part of the law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If it violates the constitution, it is null and void, or at least it should be.

  • KenfromGa

    On another topic. It’s just an observation but isn’t it odd that all of the women on the right that seem to understand the Constitution and get it are always very attractive women and the women on the left that always seem to be so bitter and would rip the Constitution to shreds if they could just to promote their twisted views are almost always dogs. Go figure.

  • Anonymous

    this woman thinks that just because something became federal law it’s constitutional. Unfathomable that she just doesn’t get it. Complete ignorance.

  • Norma Jean Buhle

    Was it forgotten, or just not thinking enough, that the “babies” that would be aborted with these 4 (at conception) would be some “females”? The hypocrisy, here (high 5 to “ugottabekiddingme” ) is astounding, as you said. Also, just for info sake, for anyone who does not understand / know, those who follow, believe in Christ, know there is GOD’S Blessings when we “choose” to do what is right in His sight, in comparison to not having GOD’S Blessing in a business, or life, and just going along with what “self” wants. GOD is real, and anyone can find that out because HE promises (and HE does not lie, ever) that HE will be found by anyone who seeks HIM with their whole heart. GOD will judge all. No one will usurp HIS authority over His creation. Lucifer, (now the “fallen one”) tried to usurp GOD’S will, and authority. GOD allows “free will”, but HE alone will be in charge of eternal consequences.

  • Chad Millard

    Forgive me if I sound naive, but I have a question. Ireland kept referring to a federal law, and how the requirement to provide these forms of contraception was supported by it. We have the SCOTUS, that makes a ruling that this law is unconstitutional, and therefore not valid. The question is – why does she keep referring to a federal law, that no longer exists? Or am I wrong in this thought?

    • Steve

      Its still a law, they were exempted from it due to another law.

  • Anonymous

    The liberals do not like to think that a company can be an extension of who the owner is or is trying to be. For now, like it or not, “the business” still has some “say so” in what they do. If that “say so” goes away then, essentially, the business has been acquired by the government

  • Tantalus XVI

    “If we can save just one child.” “WoMeN’s RiGhtS rAwR RwAr!!!”
    Don’t bother trying to understand the two talking points.

  • bob machaffy

    NOW’s president should be after shariah law, talk about suppression of women.

  • Robin Shuler Downe

    No body is forcing any woman to work at Hobby Lobby. If they don’t like the benefits, they don’t have to work there!

    • Brendan Smith

      More that that, the morning after pill costs $50. Just because Hobby Lobby won’t pay for it, doesn’t mean you can’t go buy it yourself.

      • MyNightmare

        According to planned parenthood, the abortion factory, the MA pill costs between $10 and $70 for the uninsured depending on the market. If you are insured, you’ll pay a $10 to $30 copay. Either way, the woman who choose that option have to pay.

  • Jon Galt

    Aren’t the feminists basically saying that women are so bad with their money that they need their employer to cover their birth control?

    Just like the leftists with blacks, aren’t they saying that blacks can’t do it on their own and need handouts from white taxpayers?

    • Anonymous

      Sounds that way, doesn’t it, Jon?

    • Anonymous

      Two other possibilities are that they are saying we’re so weak that we are unable to resist a man’s charms and can’t help falling under his sway; and/or, that we are so simpleminded and irresponsible that we can’t remember that having sex is how we get pregnant and to plan accordingly.

    • Kim

      Exactly! I have yet to hear an argument that explains exactly HOW women are being prevented from obtaining birth control of any kind by this ruling.

      You’d think liberals are positive that we are completely helpless and incapable unless some one actually hands us the birth control.

      As a woman who firmly believes in equality, I’m really hating the “feminist” movement. It’s insulting to be told that we can’t take care of ourselves.

  • Sraaken

    I’m dumbfounded this woman asks if we are going to respect the law, when we have a president like Obama who has no respect for the law, and also,
    the supreme court decision was to uphold a law…

    • Curtis Mitchell Rasmussen

      The problem is that we’re NOT that fast on our side. We try to be “measured” and “fair”. A really good debater would have made the statement (re: Obama’s lawlessness in order to put it into the minds of the listeners) and then come back to the central point of the debate in order to NOT let her respond.

      It’s a science and art form to both BEAT and discredit one’s opponent in a debate. Dana has that ability, but not enough time to achieve it.

      BTW, watch it again and notice Sean’s face. The last thing he wants is thousands of hate letters coming in to defend Ireland. But, I’m all for that more aggressive approach. The younger generation IS buying it.

      • Feet2Fire

        Yes, Conservatives, GOP, Tea Partyers, Freedom-Lovers, all of us have to develop the ability to think on our feet and respond quickly… because TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Kenway

    Liberal feminist can care less about women’s rights. In fact they care more about sex than rights.

    • Anonymous

      …which is kinda funny when you consider that, as ugly and undesirable as they are, they’re not getting much.

      • MyNightmare

        It’s called Envy. That why they are jealous.

  • Jim

    If women care so much about this and are promiscuous, perhaps they shouldn’t work at Hobby Lobby. No one is forcing them to work there.

    • Steve

      Married women use birth control. Just sayin’. I agree though, its a package. You don’t like it, don’t accept the job.

      • Jim

        What I meant by promiscuous is that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to offer drugs such as the day after pill, even though they already offer 16 other types of birth control

  • Anonymous

    Dana needs to run for Senate in whichever state she lives in.

    • Maugaoali’i Pele

      Good job Dana….and, I’ll vote for you …MOOOOOOO!

  • BlueMN

    Loesch: Knock, knock
    Ireland: Who’s there?
    Loesch: Interrupting Cow
    Ireland: Inter…
    Loesch: MOOOOO!!!!

    • Anonymous

      You reall bring up some solid arguments and good points; you must be…wait for it…a typical liberal extremist victim having nothing to offer society but your need for pity.

  • Sturrmm .

    I love how she thinks a “for profit” business can’t have religious beliefs. Ever hear of mom and pop stores? What do you think our country ran on for 100 years?

  • Daddy4life

    This does not deny the womans right to get the day pill. Hobby Lobby just doesn’t have to pay for it. An employer is not forcing the woman to go out and have sex. The Employer is not out make a woman pregnant. So why does a woman have the right to force the Employer to pay for her mistakes!!!

  • Kati Jean

    The way I see it, employees have 3 options if they don’t like the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for their abortions..1.. work somewhere else- after all- it is still a free country (at least for now)… .2- use of of the birth control methods that they pay for or 3 – keep your legs together!

    • MyNightmare

      Enough with your common sense! I digress, If libs had common sense, they wouldn’t be libs.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, but then they couldn’t play the victim.

  • http://www.absoluteintensity.com dennis reilly

    when is Ireland going to start a business so she can provide some health care for women, what a hypocrite, walk the walk Ireland

  • reggiedunlop

    feminists seem really, really unattractive.

  • reggiedunlop

    a company that didn’t provide benefits would probably go out of business due to lack of employees. barring that poor service/products due to the need to hire inferior employees

  • Anonymous

    I have an idea … let’s reduce the size of government, lower taxes, and leave people with enough money that they no longer feel they need to have an employer or government agency pay for such products and services.

  • joe michael villa

    is this the same Hobby Lobby that invest in abortion pill manufacturing?

    Funny, everything else Christians don’t like, they have been very industrious in creating their own version of it. They don’t like “liberal” colleges, so they create their own. They don’t like the “liberal” media so they created FOX. They don’t like advisory boards that maintian standards for professions like the AMA, so they try to create their own. They have their own publishing companies, credit unions… they even have their own dating sites.

    So why, when evangelicals and Wall Street are bed fellows, have they not created mutual funds that are in keeping with a good Christian’s belief system? Could it be that as long as they can keep it in the dark and make $ off it, they don’t mind “liberal” things?

    So much for “deeply held beliefs.”

    • Brendan Smith

      Hobby Lobby contracts a company to create a 401k for their employees.

      Financial Firm creates said 401k and gives Hobby Lobby employees the opportunity to invest in multiple Mutual Funds based on verticals like pharmaceuticals, or segments like Growth and Income.

      Within these funds are an ever changing array of companies as dictated by the type of fund, and according to how the fund manager reads the market. Hobby Lobby has absolutely zero input on this. It would be a conflict of interest and major SEC violation.

      Finally, the money, which belongs to the employees of Hobby Lobby (Not Hobby Lobby as you presented it) is invested in the funds at the discretion of the employees. Not Hobby Lobby.

      So, Hobby Lobby provided a 401k. Their 401k provider happened to have a Mutual Fund which at one time, happened to include an abortion pill manufacturer. Some of their employees chose to invest in that fund. I’m willing to bet none of them read their prospectus and even knew what was in the fund, if indeed the company in question’s stock was even in the fund at the time the prospectus was printed.

      Nice false flag, but I’m not buying it.

      • Feet2Fire

        They tried the same thing with Romney, didn’t they?

        • Brendan Smith

          I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

      • joe michael villa

        So a company like Hobby Lobby who is deeply religious isn’t going to investigate who they contract and how they invest their money?

        yeah, sorry not buying it.

        But what else would you expect from a company that owns a store in Hong Kong by the name of Hong Kong Connections.

        Same Hong Kong Connections that pays taxes yearly to the Chinese Government.

        Those taxes help for state sponsored abortions.


        • Brendan Smith

          Once again, it is not their money. It is the money of the employees who choose what funds they invest in.

        • CajunRay

          You don’t have to “buy it”. Since every 401k provider conducts business the she way, Hobby Lobby would have two choices. They could either accept the prospectus as the fund manager creates it or not provide a 401k at all. Which would be the more “Christian” thing to do? Would you prefer that Hobby Lobby paid their employees minimum wage and not provide an investment portfolio to their hourly employees like most companies of similar size? As for your China comment, are you saying that companies should not pay taxes our operate in a country because those taxes might be used to support something the company owners don’t agree with? You should tell that to all the companies that support the LGBT community but still does business in Russia.

          “Ouch”. Really? Are you 12? You should have just said “Burn”. Grow up.

  • Anonymous

    Oh yeah Patricia Ireland???? Deporting illegal aliens is also FEDERAL LAW!!!! SO WHY THE F (((( CK ISN’T THE GOVERNMENT DEPORTING EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN?????

    • Brendan Smith

      Don’t bring that logic stuff round here…This be the interwebs.

  • Moozmom

    Does anyone recall when patients, doctors, nurses, and visitors smoked in hospitals? I do. That, dear friends, is a slippery slope. First, smoking is bad for you. Second, you can’t smoke there or here. Third, no insurance if you smoke, And on and on. What I want to know is: If smoking is criminal,why do tobacco companies still exist?

    • Anonymous

      Not sure what that has to do with anything, nor you point, but I do know without any doubt, no women are being denied any necessary medical coverage by this ruling…NONE. Go home liberals, your days are numbered.

  • SVisser

    LOL! I loved Patricia ‘ s throw back statement to Hannity “Do you believe in Federal Law” Um Federal law is not a belief system. Laws continually change especially when the majority of the people ask for them to change. I believe in upholding laws, which is why Hobby Lobby went through legal channels to insure they were upholding the law while exercising their Religious freedoms. The case was made. The facts rang true to the majority of the court and they won. Should ever changing laws be a belief system. That would be a little confusing and in consistent and it would be all to convenient if a belief system changed every time it didn’t fit with something you want. This is why Federal government should stay out of schools, the idea that a government should teach ethics, when it’s ethics change on a daily basis is disconcerting, teaching right and wrong, when tomorrow what was wrong is right. #ParentsAgainstCommonCore

  • majinvegeta010688

    I have to say one thing. This is one of the worst interviews I have ever seen. They don’t even say in the article how Dana would not even let Ireland speak. If you are going to prove a point don’t interrupt the person that you are trying to debate. This is the sort of thing that gives conservatives and Christians for that matter a bad name.

    Listen, i’m not really too sure where I stand on this. I would say that I am more in favor of the court ruling than not. I say this because I feel that if a business is trying to be viewed in a specific way then the have the right to do as they wish in accordance of the law. Furthermore, since businesses are viewed as people under the law, which I honestly don’t know where it actually states that fact in law, it makes this ruling valid even though I sort of feel that in a way it shouldn’t be.

    I feel that there is a fine line where this should even be applied since the only way this would make sense is if the owner of the business actually believes that certain things should not be provided. Otherwise, who will make these decisions?

    I also must say that Ireland is not entirely wrong in her statements. I haven’t read the bill but, if what they are making it sound like in this video is true, then Ireland is correct in saying that someone that has a religious belief that says no medical help, then that business doesn’t have to provide any healthcare. Even beliefs as bogus as Scientology will be upheld since it is a recognized religion. Don’t they believe in less or no medical treatment? Here is a link to the wiki on it.


    of course there are refrences there if you want to research more. This just goes to show how someone that believes the text literally or blindly just believes in all things that the Scientologist church says and does could use to not give health insurance to their employees or maybe even force the employees to go to the church of Scientology to get permission to do so. Whether that will hold up in court under this law I don’t know. This does, however, is the concern that Ireland is referencing in her statement. So, just to say she is wrong on this and not exploring the possibility that this happens is way off base.

  • Anonymous

    Hannity is a rude a – hole, and so is the idiot anti-womens rights rightwint-nut.

  • Peter Toth

    Even in the face of facts that refute the rhetoric and misinformation that the far left spew, they continue to cling to their lies.

    What if lightning were to strike you when you walked out in the open on a clear day? Because this could happen, you should all be wearing tin foil hats with grounding wires. To ignore this warning is to ignore the possibility. Think of the children!!

    This is the type of wild claims the left makes regularly, and is seldom ever challenged on it by the left wing media. They exist only because media outlets prop them up and enable them.

  • Zach Earnest

    Fact: You will never convince someone who has already made up their mind. Save your breath.

  • JumpinJackFlash

    The point Ireland was attempting to make is valid. ‘Freedom of Religion’ makes a nice bumper sticker, but it can’t be used cart blanche. When we start to treat corporations as deserving the same rights as citizens, we are forced into answering tough questions. But apart from that important consideration, even ‘freedom of religion’ as applying to individuals can’t be used as a blank check. Look at Kent Hovind, who went to jail for skimping out on taxes and tried to use his ‘religious freedom’ as a get out of tax free card. If you think the founding fathers had a huckster like Hovind in mind when they wrote the first amendment, I have some beachfront property on Neptune you might like. And Hannity can say ‘lets stick to the case at hand’ all day; he’s missing the important point that supreme court cases create precedence. That’s why Ireland was trying to discuss the ruling’s implications, and which is also why both Hannity and Loesch- ornery and obnoxiously truculent – looked like fools.

    • Brian Bahbah

      It makes up more than a nice bumper sticker. It makes up the most important part of the constitution.

      • JumpinJackFlash

        You misunderstand. Obviously it’s more than a bumper sticker: yet when one just parrots the phrase over and over again without explaining what it really entails than that person’s viewpoint is no more useful or insightful than a vapid bumper sticker. That’s what I’m saying. What are the limits? Obviously it isn’t an unlimited doctrine, look at Hovind for an empirical example.

    • Guest

      “When we start to treat corporations as deserving the same rights as citizens,”
      You miss the distinctive point in the Hobby Lobby/Connestaga case. These are not gigantic corps, these are closely-held family-run corps.
      That makes the point Ireland was trying (and failed) to make INvalid.
      Details, flash, details.

      • JumpinJackFlash

        “family run business” is yet another fake political buzzword that’s been stretched into complete ambiguity. If your company is so large as to have locations all over America, and 95% of your employees are not family members, I don’t see how the term ‘family run’ can still really be applied. Since there aren’t any hard and fast limits on such a phrase, it could arguably be applied to any store or chain that began as a family operation (which after all, is the case with most self starters).

      • JumpinJackFlash

        ‘Family run corps’ is yet another buzzword with no real substance. If your business has locations nationwide, and employs a huge number of people in no way related to you including in management and upper level corporate positions, you are no longer a ‘family run corperation’ according to simple logic and inarguable definitions. Further, this is SCOTUS, so we must consider the precedent set by the case. You might have been asleep in government class that day, but the rulings SCOTUS make aren’t just confined to ‘distinctive points’. Already, we’re seeing the negative impact of this rather blind toadying to conservative “principles”

  • Nancy Chasteen

    Slightly off topic, according to Ob/ gyn doctor whose lecture I attended last month, Plan B does not abort fertilzed egg. I think it prevents fertilization. Also taking 3 or 4 of rhe ordinary BCP’s “the morning after” has the same effect. So there is a way around that prohibition.

  • Osaka Williams

    Although merit can’t replace utility for making market decisions in a free country, we must recognize military merit in liberty’s defense.

  • John Smith

    Unfettered worship of democracy can be dangerous because democracy is often confused with liberty, may be diametrically opposed to liberty, and is often exploited by those pursuing their own egotistical agenda.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.