First, the Supreme court gave human qualities to a corporation regarding free speech and political contributions and now they are being asked to give greater rights to corporations regarding religious beliefs than they do to women regarding their reproductive rights.
The Hobby Lobby does not object to all contraception but rather seeks to etch out a few exceptions based upon religious grounds. The federal law under which religiously based corporations seek protection from the government intruding upon and keeping individuals from practicing their religious beliefs is not relevant here due to the fact that no one is forcing any woman to take contraception. How can you claim that your religious beliefs are being trampled on if you do not have to take the form of contraception that the HOBBY LOBBY is objecting to?
No one is forcing any woman to take any or all forms of contraception and no corporation should have the right to deny an employee from using any form of contraception that she chooses to. It is proper to allow the decision to be between her doctor and herself.
It is quite a bit of hypocrisy to allow a man to get his Viagra paid for by an insurance company but deny a women the right to choose the morning after pill if she so chooses or any other form of contraception and have it paid for as well..
If you take the so-called logic of the case further, one could surmise that exceptions to coverage could extend to blood transfusions if the particular religion finds blood transfusions objectionable, or vaccinations as another example.
A corporation is not a church. You may pray to the altar of money, but it is a huge stretch to extend religious beliefs to your workplace. It is unreasonable to expect that all of your employees would be of the same faith. If a tenet of a certain religious denomination finds a law objectionable that would be germane if the law interfered with the ability of an employee to practice ones faith. But in this case no one is being forced to take a type of contraception. What the parties to the lawsuit want to do is to write into the law an exception to the ACA, regarding what prescriptions are paid for by your insurance. They are continuing to try to chip away at ROE V. Wade, by coming through the backdoor, by alleging that you take a morning afer pill you are ending potential life by making sure a woman does not pregnant. You could, therefore make the argument that any form of contraception ends potential life and is a form of abortion.
Perhaps, this nonsense regarding interfering into a woman’s right of choice would end if we all would recognize that there is major denomination or religion that does not want any form of contraception allowed. Surely, what is being attempted here is a form of tyranny. Tyranny where the few are trying to decide for the majority what will be allowed based upon what specific religious tenet that particular religion has.
English common law held that life begins when the fetus is capable to sustain life outside the womb. Catholics and others maintain that life begins at conception. This disagreement will never be resolved. Let each person be responsible for his or her own life without some religion telling someone how to live their life.
The exception HOBBY is seeking would cause religion to intrude into the private affairs of women. We should maintain our separation of church and state, and allow a woman to have the freedom of choice regarding her own body and her own health.
Reblogged this on Crippled Politics.
Hear hear! Somehow I have faith that the court will not find for Hobby Lobby as it is an entity unto itself and the rd fore cannot have a religious bias. I would hate to think what it will mean if the court does rule in the company’s favor.
Hopefully, I hope your faith in the Supreme Court is well-founded. I wish I could be as confident about them doing the right thing as you are.
After their ridiculous ruling on the Citizens United case, I’m afraid that I may be a bit paranoid about their ability to make a sensible ruling. After all, who in their right mind would ever believe that a corporation should be granted the same rights as a person?
I also feel rather hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing in this case, but I’m also not going to count any chickens before they hatch.
Yes, it is logical to hope that reason will triumph. This court has a chance to be the worst court in history. Citizens United and the WalMart case being examples. We will probably find out in late June. Let us keep our fingers crossed.