I find several things about the Hobby Lobby decision, and the comments from people I know, to be very interesting on several levels.
First, in my opinion a lot of this would not ever have had the media coverage it has if the subject was not related to sex. Not "sex" as in gender, but as in the physical act. As they say in advertising "Sex sells". And people feel more emboldened to rant and rave about sex than say astigmatism.
Thousands of businesses do not offer coverage for vision care or corrective lenses - yet I do no see large groups of near sighted men and women picketing those companies. Though I would love to see that since I like many people do not consider my glasses an "option". In order to work, function, or drive I need to be able to see - and for me and millions of others that means eyeglasses or contact lenses. Yet you do not see us going crazy in the streets when we accept a job with a company that does not pay for those items.
When choosing the insurance plan offered to their employees the HR department is usually more focused on cost than any moral stance. HOWEVER, and this must be taken in account, a privately held corporation does have the right in my opinion to set up parameters that they feel do not violate their owners beliefs.
Secondly, in this age of information accessibility it is easy enough to learn if the company you are considering working for holds owner / corporate beliefs that you would have an issue with. For example: Chick-fil-A does not operate on Sundays and a private Christian school is most likely not going to cover the cost of your abortion. These are just facts based on those two businesses core values. So if you were a strong Pro-Choice supporter why would you take a job with the Catholic Church? I do not believe that abortions should be performed with the frequency they are and for so many of the stupid (in my opinion) reasons many women give as to why they want to end a pregnancy - so my taking a job with Planned Parenthood would not be a great idea as I would be in conflict from Day 1 with their mandate of accessible "family planning" for everyone - even teenagers. Who can have an abortion without their parent's consent or knowledge - yet they cannot get their ears pierced, an aspirin from the school nurse, or teeth pulled without a parent's consent.
Third, I do not agree with some of the comments I have read today that claim this ruling has anything to do with penalizing women financially. There are dozens of generic options for birth control pills on the market ranging in price from $4-$28 a month. Even with insurance and taking a no generic option a woman would typically pay the co-payment of $10-$25 monthly.
As a side note - a box of condoms will run you $8-$20 depending on where you purchase them.
This brings me to my fourth item. I see almost no men up in arms about this ruling. Why? Because birth control for men has NEVER been covered with any insurance plan. Yes, I understand, it is an outer "device" and not a medication. But what about women who choose a diaphragm instead of the Pill? Their option has never been covered either. Or in some cases the initial fitting for the diaphragm is covered but never the spermicidal jelly that goes with it.
What this uproar is really about is abortion. Which has become the single issue litmus test for any political candidate or appointee. Hobby Lobby (Evangelical), Conestoga (Mennonite), and a Christian bookstore chain brought the suit to protest not having to cover birth control such as the Pill or a diaphragm – but four specific forms of contraception: Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb.
Heads up NOW – these companies strongly believe, as do many others by the way, that life begins at conception and they are morally opposed to destroying that life. And before someone chimes in with the old “What about rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life?” argument – I have heard of NO groups coming forward and saying they would try to prevent a woman in those situations from terminating a pregnancy. Legal abortions have always been an option for these situations – even before Roe v. Wade.
I find it increasingly frustrating and ridiculous that a person’s views and beliefs on this ONE topic is what so many people focus on when choosing a mayor, senator or president. As if any one view on a single topic is a good indicator of how a person will perform in all other aspects of their position.
And just in case anyone is still wondering where my stand on the subject is – I am Pro-Life. I have no problem with the use of contraceptives, vasectomies, or hysterectomies. Some people have no interest in being parents. Others have a genetic issue or family history of disease that make them choose adoption or not having children at all. Fine, that is their choice and I respect that. Not everyone can or should have children.
But to those who see abortion as a sort of “Get Out Of Jail Free” card, who do not want to “bother” with birth control or accept that actions have consequences – I do not think we as a society should be making it as easy as it is for them to destroy a life that did not ask to be created. Especially when the woman waits until seven months in to make up her mind about not becoming a mother. If you and/or your partner don’t want children – use something – anything – during sex. Don’t have anything on hand? Then you wait, or better yet – use that hand. Practice a little self- denial and stop treating your body as less than the miraculous creation it is. Stop putting your bodies through the extreme trauma of an abortion because having a baby now was not in your five year plan, or you let your lover guilt you into not using a condom, or you got so drunk you went home with some guy whose name you don’t know and whose face you cannot remember. Take some responsibility for your actions, preferably before you get knocked up.