I may get flack for this, but this is how I see things, and I will not apologize for my feelings or viewpoint. Any comments must be courteous and civil.
Back in elementary school we learn many things. I remember distinctly learning in grammar about nouns: is it a person, place, thing, or idea. What was the noun in one sentence or another? What category did it fall under? With the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case (and with Citizens United several years ago), a thing (businesses and companies) are now persons. Because these things are now considered persons (Citizens United), these things can now exercise religious freedom under the constitution. At least this is what was the result of the ruling - in the most simple terms. David Green, as owner, is now able to refuse providing 4 of the 20 approved birth control methods under the ACA for his employees at Hobby Lobby because he believes that they are a form of abortion.
If you are unaware, Hobby Lobby is a craft store. It's not a person. It's not a church. It's not affiliated with a church. Hobby Lobby is a craft store.
But what about the first amendment and freedom of religion? First of all (I just learned this), the first amendment really only applies to Congress, but it is generally applied to all US citizens. That being said, Congress cannot declare any religion a religion of the United States of America. We are to remain without a state religion. This is one of the reasons why the early settlers came to America in the first place - to be able to practice their own religion without persecution. Second, Congress cannot favor one religion over another.
So what if a person doesn't have a religion? What then? In this case with Green and Hobby Lobby, religion trumps non-religion in closely held companies. Huh? Isn't this favoring one religion over another? Yes and no. Things get tricky when there is an absence of something when comparing two groups to one another. If you would go back to the last paragraph where it says that Congress can't declare a religion of the United States of America, one would hope that non-religion would "win" over religion.
While we were founded upon Christian values, we are not a Christian nation. We are Catholic, Lutheran (and the various sects there of), Presbyterian, Mormon, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamist, Sikh, Scientologist, Jehovah Witness, Atheist, Agnostic...the list goes on. While some religions hold very similar beliefs, holding one belief over a non-belief in a country where there is no national religion doesn't sit quite right.
If Hobby Lobby were a Christian store, like Green's Christian book store, catering to Christians, promoting Christianity, etc., then maybe he has a leg to stand on when wanting to not provide coverage for the 4 contraceptives in question. Like I said above, Hobby Lobby is a craft store that just happens to be owned by a Christian.
The ACA was written to be a baseline for health insurance coverage. If a company wanted to go above and beyond that, they were more than welcome to. However, a baseline was needed so those with health insurance were guaranteed basic health coverage as determined by medical science for the overall good of public health. Other countries understand that access to basic healthcare is a human right, and they provide basic healthcare to their citizens. Why America doesn't is beyond me.
Individuals keep on saying we are a "Christian Nation," but how "Christian" are we when we deny a basic human right, such as basic healthcare - which includes contraception. Contraception that isn't necessarily meant to "abort" a fetus (I put that in quotes because not everyone believes life begins at the moment a sperm meets an egg), but to regulate irregular periods, control severe menstrual cycles, or any other issue that can cause severe discomfort or infertility in a woman.
When you own a non-religious business, whether or not it is privately held (and falls under the ACA rules), your religious views should have zero say in what kind of healthcare your employees are entitled to. When you incorporate, your religious views on healthcare no longer have merit. If you impose your views upon your employees, you are now infringing upon their religious (or non-religious) views. Unfortunately with this ruling, business owners can do just that. We are now sliding down a slippery slope until this ruling is reversed. Your religious views are your own and they end at the tip of your nose. That is the same with my religious views. When it comes to healthcare, we need to be tolerant of religious and non-religious alike, keeping medical decisions between the patient and their doctor. In that office is where the final decision on how to proceed with care can be based upon the patients religious views and not those of their employer.
No comments:
Post a Comment