Last week, in the run up to the celebration of our nation’s birthday and fight for independence, the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration (again) and supported religious liberty. In the highly watched Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations should be allowed to be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there are other viable, less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interests. At the heart of the case was Hobby Lobby’s refusal to pay for 4 of the 20 available contraceptives mandated by regulations made under Obamacare due to their abortifacient properties (like Plan B). The owners of Hobby Lobby were devout Christians, and did not want to pay for something that would lead to the killing of an unborn child. However, by choosing to violate a regulation made by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (not a law made by Congress), they were subject to millions of dollars in fines a day, so they decided to take the Obama Administration to court.
While I find it disappointing that the court used a statutory reason to protect religious liberty (The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) instead of a constitutional one (the First Amendment), the ruling should still be considered an encouraging win for those that want to live their personal and business lives according to their faith. The Obama administration failed, and rightly so, to convince the court how a regulation such as this one could only be accomplished by silencing the faith expression of certain for-profit groups, especially since it had already given exemptions to private and non-profit groups for this as well as other things. Religious freedom – or any kind of freedom for that matter – should not be limited by a company’s tax status.
While the SCOTUS decision was narrowly tailored to apply to closely held for-profit groups, that didn’t stop the hysterical horde of the liberal left from cranking up the lie machine. Almost immediately the shrieking started (which curiously did not exist before the Obamacare mandate), about how this decision was allowing corporations to deny women access to contraceptives, about how it was allowing bosses to interfere in a woman’s healthcare decisions, and about how corporations were forcing their religious beliefs on their employees. I find the sheer ignorance of these claims downright insulting to women; do liberals really think we are that stupid? Claiming that this decision is a denial of access to contraceptives is like claiming a company’s refusal to pay for chocolate is a denial of access to candy. No access to birth control was ever denied here; this employer merely refused to pay for the kinds that would abort a baby. Women are still perfectly able to get these, only now they have to pay for it themselves. Oh the horror! Because you know, nothing says ‘strong, independent woman’ like demanding that others pay for your birth control or abortion.
Folks, let’s get a couple things straight. Contraceptives and abortion are not healthcare. They are sexual-consequence care. Except for extremely rare cases, contraceptives are used to either prevent a pregnancy or end a pregnancy, a happenstance which occurs as the direct result of having sex. Only when a pregnancy goes wrong, either intentionally (as in the case of a botched abortion) or sadly unintentionally, or conversely, is happily carried to term, does any actual healthcare then come into play. Frankly, I find this focus on my lady parts quite demeaning, as if my sole reason for being (and voting) is to have consequence-free sexual escapades. It’s so nice to know that our elected and bureaucratic leaders think so little of women that they believe that we need Sugar Daddy Government to run to our sexual rescue, even if it means trampling all over the liberty (religious or otherwise) of other citizens to do so. Can someone please explain to me how something supposedly 0% my employer’s business is still 100% their financial responsibility? Apparently these folks believe that the only part of their boss women have a right to have in their bedroom is his checkbook.
As an independent, self-reliant woman, I do not need or expect others to be forced to pay for my stuff. That is because I choose to act like an adult rather than a spoiled, stompy-foot child. So, you don’t like the coverage of your employer’s healthcare plan, the premiums of which they subsidize for you? Then grow up, take your freedom, and either pay for your own additional healthcare or work for a different company. You do not have a right to demand that someone else subsidize your “liberty” at the expense of their own. That isn’t demanding liberty; it’s accepting dependency and enabling tyranny. What kind of strong woman wants that?
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” ~ William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806), British Prime Minister