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.
References:
