Democratic operatives and radical feminist groups have been hyperventilating since Monday’s Supreme Court decision, which allows Hobby Lobby to exclude some contraceptives from its insurance coverage. It was much ado about nothing. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a small victory for common sense, but it was a narrowly written opinion that will have no effect on women’s health and little effect on Obamacare’s burdensome regulations.

Hobby Lobby already provides health-care coverage to its employees, which includes 16 different types of contraceptives. The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, only objected to the four birth control methods that are abortifacients: morning after pills and IUDs. In addition to providing generous health care and dental coverage, the company offers a retirement savings plan, Sundays off, and its base pay is almost twice the minimum wage.

That said, if a Hobby Lobby employee wants the morning after pill, she can go to the local pharmacy and pay for it and still come out ahead of most women who are employed by similar retailers. That why there will be no mass exodus of Hobby Lobby’s female employees.

However, this case should shed some much-needed light on one of Obamacare’s dirty little secrets. It’s discriminatory. If free contraception is a right, as Obama and his disciples would have us believe, why hasn’t there been a large outcry from men (apart from the usual suspects – political operatives and a few pantywaists) who are left out in the cold?

Perhaps men do not yet know that they are getting the very short end of Obamacare’s extremely long stick.

While women get free contraceptives, there is no contraception coverage mandate for men. Obamacare also mandates that women can have tubal ligations without a co-pay, but there is no corresponding coverage for vasectomies.

I would think that women as well as men would be outraged over that since a vasectomy is much easier and less painful for a man than a tubal ligation is for a woman. If Obama’s bleeding-heart liberals are really concerned about poor women, where is the logic in that?

If a family is on a tight budget and can’t afford the cost of a vasectomy, a woman will have to suffer the additional pain and complication risks. Is that fair? Clearly, logic and fairness is not what Obamacare is about. It’s not about helping low-income women and families. It’s about pandering to the powerful feminist lobby that helped put Obama in office.

In addition to moral concerns that some couples have about using the morning after pill or an IUD, there are health risks that are present with many female forms of birth control. So what about low-income couples who want to use condoms but can’t afford them because they are on a tight budget? What about them?

If the truth be known, Obamacare discriminates against these families and men in particular. Obamacare created 159 new government boards, agencies, commissions and programs which are driving up (not down as promised) the cost of health care. On top of that, at least seven of these new entities are devoted specifically to women’s health. None are specifically devoted to men’s health.

Now consider the fact that women outlive men by about five years. Also, nine of the 10 leading causes of death affect men at a higher percentage than women. Another sad fact is that more than half of the elderly windows living in poverty were not poor before the death of their husbands.

The government has an Office of Women’s Health, but there is no corresponding Office of Men’s Health. Brandon Leonard at the Men’s Health Network says his organization has been working overtime to try to get this inequity corrected.

Despite all the emphasis on breast cancer by our government, it is a little-known fact that a man is more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than a woman with breast cancer. Yet, under Obamacare, women get free breast exams, but men do not get free prostate screenings. Where’s the fairness in that?

Similarly, our government spends almost three times more money on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research. In 2013 it was $657 million to $286 million.

After the Hobby Lobby decision, the feminists were out in force with their end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios. One of their major themes is that the government (in this case the courts) shouldn’t be involved in health-care decisions.

Where were they when Obamacare was passed?

Media wishing to interview Jane Chastain, please contact [email protected].

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.