Horowitz: Now that SCOTUS ignores human rights violations, red states must ignore the courts

"No human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience." ~Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights

Even someone as pessimistic about Republican-appointed judges as I am did not see this coming. It has become increasingly obvious that the majority of SCOTUS justices believe the government — federal or state — can control your body, regardless of the evidence, level of oversight and transparency, and violence it causes to the Constitution. But most court-watchers felt that the justices would at least uphold religious liberty exemptions from vaccine mandates based on endless case law.

Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, however, have now placed the final nail in the coffin of freedom of conscience in the courts. They will never be there to protect human rights in blue states. As such, we must not let them or their sidekicks in the lower courts prevent red states from protecting rights where conservatives have control.

An American does not have a right to breathe freely without a mask and live a functional life without taking a risky injection, but those with gender dysphoria have a right to force a hospital to perform castration. Also, an individual has a right to insurance coverage for abortion but not for ivermectin or lifesaving COVID treatment. This is the America we now live in, thanks to Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, based on several decisions they made over the past week.

In John Does 1-3 v. Mills, six of the high court's justices turned down an emergency request for an injunction from health care workers in Maine who had until last Friday to get injected or face termination. Maine did not accept any religious exemptions, in clear violation of numerous long-standing and recent Supreme Court decisions. This was the time and the case for any justice with a modicum of constitutional jurisprudence in his or her bones to grant an emergency injunction pending the merits of the case, but Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh turned down the request. This comes several months after Barrett turned down a request for injunction from a Seventh Circuit case involving Indiana University students being forced to get the injection.

As I pointed out in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, better known as the Catholic Adoptions Services gay adoption case, Barrett and Kavanaugh helped water down what should have been a majority opinion stating that government can never place undue burdens on religious beliefs without strict scrutiny. Rather than doing so, Barrett stated that there was no need to go down the more categorical path because in that particular case, the city of Philadelphia was already subject to strict scrutiny because it offered other exemptions from the gay adoption mandate, so it should have applied them to Catholic Adoption Services. Fast-forward five months and we have Maine offering medical exemptions but not religious exemptions, yet Barrett has no problem contradicting her prior opinion.

"As the Court's opinion today explains, the government contract at issue provides for individualized exemptions from its nondiscrimination rule, thus triggering strict scrutiny," wrote Barrett in a bizarre concurrence joined by Justices Kavanaugh and Breyer. That Barrett could ignore the plight of these workers when they were fighting against a violation of their conscience at the risk of losing their jobs is quite unconscionable. CMS Medicare data that was presented during the lawsuit showed disturbing signals about a massive number of excess deaths and injuries resulting from blood disorders likely related to the shots.

Which brings us to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, in which the same six justices denied certiorari in a case requiring Catholic employers to cover abortions in insurance plans. In addition, Barrett and Kavanaugh joined the liberals in allowing a lower court ruling to stand in Dignity Health, Inc. v. Minton, a case in which California was forcing a Catholic hospital to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who believes she is a man.

So at a time when hospitals are allegedly denying basic human care and blocking lifesaving COVID treatment while forcing patients to take a drug that induces kidney failure, someone can demand that religious hospitals offer castration or mutilation operations.

Let's not forget that earlier this year, the same justices denied cert in Arlene's Flowers, a case where a private florist shop was being forced to service a gay wedding ceremony.

So, let's get this straight. Barrett and Kavanaugh believe that even the government, not to mention a private entity, can deny service for not getting a dangerous injection or not wearing a mask, yet even a small business cannot deny service for a particular event (not the person) that patently violates his or her religious beliefs?

We've heard a lot of talk about the "right" of all major monopolies within an entire industry to work together with and at the behest of the federal government to box out entire groups of people from service or employment for not getting a shot — all in violation of the Nuremberg code. Yet, at the same time, people with religious objections have no "private business" rights to adhere to their religion.

Indeed, Kavanaugh and Barrett are either radicals in disguise or they so badly want to show the left they are "impartial" that they are willing to shred the Constitution and flip basic fundamental rights on their heads.

Either way, it has become self-evident that people in blue states do not have rights. But what about the red states? What about those states where we are seeking to ban mandates that violate religious conscience and bodily integrity? Well, the left is taking those laws straight to court and is often winning. These same judges who won't grant relief to those being forced to get shots will suddenly grant "relief" to businesses and perhaps even the federal government so they can force others to get the shots or wear a mask. The same businesses that can't turn down gay wedding services, even though customers can go to 50 other places for services, will obtain the right to collude to box out those who don't get a dangerous shot from living a functional life across the board.