*For those of you who are my Facebook friends and have read my thoughts on this case on that platform, much of this blog post will be a repeat of that discussion.
I’m sure many of us are completely sick of hearing about how the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby retail stores against the Obamacare mandates requiring employers to pay for all forms of birth control as part of their company insurance policies. However, I am most sick if seeing the following statements plastered all over my Facebook feed:
“All the Supreme Court judges are men, what do they know about birth control?”
“It’s not my boss’ business what kind of birth control I want!”
“I’m a woman and I’m in control of my own body and my choices!”
Here is what all the outraged women’s lib posters seem to be overlooking:
Women who work for Hobby Lobby, and any other stores that may follow in its footsteps, can STILL USE ANY TYPE OF BIRTH CONTROL THEY WANT! Hobby Lobby is only refusing to cover four of the 20 types of birth control available in its company insurance plan. Those four types are things like plan b and the morning after pill, which are bought and taken with the intention to destroy any fertilized eggs that might be present – i.e. intentionally causing an abortion, if applicable. Female employees can still use their insurance to purchase any other type of regular birth control.
However, Hobby Lobby’s female employees still, under their legal rights in the United States, have the right to choose those options not covered by their insurance if they wish, regardless of whether their employer agrees with their decision or not. This ruling has not taken away the “right to choose” and the ability to “be in control of your own body.” But, if a woman is going to choose to eliminate her unborn child, she has to pay for it herself. Which only makes sense.
Let’s say a person were going to make a personal decision on some other widely controversial topic: the Muslim religion (also something to which the arguments “separation of church and state” and “freedom of religion” can be applied.) Let’s say I – an American woman – make the choice to convert to Islam. However, I want my friend, who believes Islamic practices to be morally wrong, to pay for my pilgrimage flight to Mecca. My friend refuses based on religious convictions. So I take him to court for discrimination because he refused to pay for something that would violate his personal moral code.
Does that make sense?
The owners and controllers of the Hobby Lobby corporation believe that abortion is morally wrong. What sense does it make to force those people to violate their personal moral convictions by paying for abortion-causing medications that, if women really want them, can be purchased from their local pharmacy anyway?
If you want it, you can get it. Nobody’s stopping you from making that decision. However, if you’re going to make that decision you should be fully responsible for the medications and procedures necessary to do so, which also makes you completely liable for any side effects, after effects or other unpleasant or unexpected results. It is not your company’s fault if you regret your decision later. You made the choice; you paid for the choice; and only you can be held responsible.
Regardless of whether you – the reader – personally support abortion or not, you have to recognize the flaws in an argument that wants to force someone to pay for something that violates their conscience. You wouldn’t want to buy me something that violated your conscience, just because I demanded it, would you?
Why expect the same of company owners?
I welcome discussion. Please leave your thoughts below.