Note: I’ve gone back and forth on whether to publish this or not. But frankly, no one seems to care whether what they’re posting is offending me, so why should I care if I offend them? It’s been three days, and the steady stream of posts indicating that religious people should just sit down, shut up, and die already continues unabated, so I think I should be allowed to defend myself. Not that any of those people are going to read this and even for a minute actually contemplate what I’m saying.
I’m dismayed at how easily certain people dismiss religion these days. It seems people of religion should not be allowed to vote and should not be allowed to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Democracy, evidently, should only be granted to those who confess the government as the highest power. And yet those beliefs are no more defensible than the religious beliefs they intend to drive under ground. The moment we start declaring that only certain belief systems are acceptable for the generation of political ideas is the moment we toss out everything America has stood for from the beginning.
The religious fervor of the anti-religious has never been more clear than in the tantrum thrown over the recent “Hobby Lobby” case decided by the Supreme Court. I say “tantrum” because the quality of arguments/complaints broadcast far and wide by those who didn’t get their way is seriously lacking. If these people fear their lives being intruded on by the “irrationality of religion” they’re doing nothing to convince me they are any more rational themselves. Let us consider some of these arguments.
This ruling means women can’t get contraception, yet men get Viagra and vasectomies covered. This would only be true if: 1) Hobby Lobby is the employer of all America, and 2) contraception is only available if employer-covered insurance pays for it. A vast majority of companies will still be under at least some obligation by the contraception mandate (which, by the way, was not part of the original Affordable Care Act, but was added unilaterally by the HHS after the fact). As for what men do or don’t get, that is up to individual employers and insurance companies–the ACA was silent on those areas. Viagra is not covered under my insurance. In fact, no medication is–except female contraception. Vasectomies are only partly covered. Where is the outrage against my employer for making my medical decisions for me?
As it stands, Hobby Lobby does not want, and did not seek, to deny their employees coverage for contraceptives, just abortofacients. They intend to provide the other options as per the mandate. From their own website:
“The Greens and their family businesses have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved contraceptives required by the law that do not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. They provide coverage for such contraceptives under their health care plan. Additionally, the four objectionable drugs and devices are widely available and affordable, and employees are free to obtain them.”
I realize for some people someone not wanting to pay for abortofacient contraception is synonymous with wanting to enslave women, but for the rest of us, I believe there should be some room between denying a woman the right to an abortion at all and not wanting to be the one to pay for it, while still providing sufficient alternatives to her needing an abortion in the first place.
This means women are not “people.” I have a hard time understanding this one, frankly, but this is what I’m hearing, so I’ll discuss it. I can only assume that women are feeling maginalized by the fact that some employers might not have to pay for their contraception. If this is the case, then men are not people either, but this seems to get ignored quite soundly. Male reproductive care and contraception coverage (of any kind) was never part of the ACA or the HHS addendum. This was a freebie to women only, and men were quite glaringly excluded. I’m not sure why. If avoiding unwanted pregnancies and giving women the most reproductive freedom possible is the goal, would it not advance this to give men incentives to employ contraception? No? Why not?
But ultimately this is just reductio ad absurdum. Of course women are people. What a company does or does not pay for cannot change that. Remember, the contraception mandate hasn’t even been in effect for a year yet. So does that mean that women were not people until that one moment when the heavens opened and Secretary Sibelius granted unto women the person-hood they had so long been denied? Person-hood is determined solely by access to contraception, and by the right to get it for free? Ridiculous. But that’s the sort of “religious” irrationality we’re dealing with here.
This ruling takes away women’s healthcare decisions. The ruling was that organizations meeting certain criteria cannot be forced to comply with the contraception mandate added by Sibelius (not by Congress). It does not invalidate the mandate itself. It’s still in force for every other company big enough to have to offer insurance. I suspect only a small percentage of companies that could take advantage of this ruling to avoid the mandate actually will–and that’s assuming the ruling voids anything beyond the coverage of those four abortofacients. Not every religious person has a strong aversion to contraception, and certainly not all will object to abortofacients, either. Besides, the ruling gives clear instruction on what remedies Congress might take to address the problem of access to abortofacients. Why not try that, instead of continuing this obsession with forcing people to do things they find objectionable?
But there is a larger, more insidious argument at work here: the idea that to not subsidize something is in essence banning it. How is that so? My company doesn’t pay for my groceries. Does that mean they’re taking away my dietary decisions? And yet I somehow manage to still buy food. They provide mass transit subsidies, but offer no gas or car insurance subsidies, even though my building is not reasonably accessible by mass transit. Does that mean they’re taking away my transportation decisions? And yet I still manage to get to work. They’re not paying for my children’s education. Does that mean they’re taking away my family planning decisions? No. They are paying me money, and some benefits they feel are reasonable. They expect me to make my own decisions with the money they pay me, based on my own priorities. There is nothing stopping me from making health care decisions that would exceed what they might provide.
There is nothing stopping female (or male, for that matter) Hobby Lobby employees from going out and buying abortofacients. This ruling does not suddenly make those drugs unavailable. To imply otherwise is ludicrious and proof that you are emotionalizing this issue in an irrational manner. You are vastly exaggerating a point to a degree that makes religion appear grounded in settled science by comparison.
I could certainly empathize with people if their argument were “This ruling will make it unduly difficult for some workers to afford contraception.” That is an undeniable truth. There may be some workers who must choose between contraception and food or rent. But that’s not the argument anyone is making. What I hear is that companies are making their female employees’ health care decisions for them by not offering free contraception. Presumably, as discussed above, making men’s health care decisions for them is perfectly acceptable. There are other medical tests and procedures that may be very important for certain individuals, but are not covered under the ACA either. Where is the outrage at the government for that? Why is it acceptable to let the government make our health care decisions when they’re not even paying for it, but are foisting the cost off on companies?
The fact remains that for most women the decision to buy and use contraception is not a question of survival. It’s the difference between making coffee at home (or getting it free at work) or buying Starbucks on the way in. If they really wanted it, they could afford it. I don’t blame them for getting someone else to cover it if they can. Everyone likes a freebie. It’s just disingenuous to get upset and claim their employer is taking away their health care decisions if it says, “Hey, our job is to make sure you have a safe, secure environment to work in. Your off-clock activities are your responsibility.” Certainly no one has a problem with men picking up their own tab. One commenter on my recent Facebook post downplayed the whole thing, insisting if she sent me $6 I should be happy and shut up. Well, if it’s that cheap, then why is it such a horrible burden for women to be independent and cover it? It’s rather condescending to assume they can’t or shouldn’t have to, I should think.
Those bible-thumpers are trying to control my woman-parts. By this reasoning, if I work for a company owned by atheists I can accuse them of trying to force their religion on me because they don’t pay for my gas to go to church. Or if they decide not to cover circumcisions. Should the government be able to force the owner of an Apple store (speaking of religion and business) to stock a minimal level of PCs in order to not discriminate against that portion of the population who can’t afford Macs, or simply don’t want one? Or if a state legalizes marijuana, should it be able to require all bakeries to provide marjiuana brownies and, if a customer has a prescription for medical marijuana, give them to them for free?
There is a considerable difference between a company owner through company policy saying “Hey, I don’t want to have to pay for that–I find that unconscionable” and “Hey, I don’t believe in that, and if I ever hear of you doing it, even on your own time and dime, you’re fired.” Considering how quick we are lately to hold companies responsible for the opinions and actions of their employees, it seems only fair that a company’s owners should be able to choose for themselves what they will and won’t support. It’s up to employees to decide whether or not they can live with working for such a company. If no one wants to work at Hobby Lobby any more that’s perfectly fine. And I suspect the owners are willing to accept that outcome if that’s what happens. They can’t make people want to work for them, except through the incentives they offer. If abortofacients is a show-stopper, women won’t apply there.
The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee happiness itself. No one can be forced to provide you happiness, or to fund it. They just can’t get in the way of your defining and pursuing it yourself. If abortofacients is your definition of happiness that’s entirely your choice. But someone else not buying them for you does not in any way infringe on that. You can still pursue that aborto-blisscience to your heart’s content. With your own money.
My body, my choice. Uh huh. If you’re relying on the government to mandate it you are not the one making the choice. The Good Government giveth, the Good Government taketh away. If contraception is so important to your physical well-being I would recommend you not make yourself dependent on an organization that’s constantly changing the rules, is late with its insurance subsidy checks, can’t even approve or balance a budget, can’t keep important emails from disappearing, can’t be trusted not to spy on you via every possible means, and increasingly allows the executive branch to draft its own legislation via executive order. Likewise, don’t become dependent on a company who could go under tomorrow, lay you off today, or be purchased next week. Take responsibility for yourself. That is the only way to ensure you always have a choice. The minute you become dependent on anyone or anything else to provide things that are important to you, you are ceding your choice to someone else.
They’re just trying to escape obeying The Law. True, and they did it through the same entirely legal, acceptable means you do. Funny how it’s a noble cause when your side wants to get around a law by appealing to the courts. When you win everyone else is just supposed to bow down and acknowledge the moral superiority of your cause, but when someone else wins…well, they’re little better than criminals. The law’s the law. The science is settled. Until you disagree with it. Remember how the Constitution is an evolving document? Well, so is the lesser law of the land. It’s how things were set up to begin with, and it’s how we’ve managed to hold together for over 200 years. Someone else got their way this time. Relax. The world isn’t ending. At least that’s what you keep telling everyone else when you win.
But it’s going to lead to companies trampling all over women’s rights in the name of religion! Funny, but whenever I use the “slippery slope” argument you say I’m over-reacting and need to chill/trust you. Again, I suspect you’ll be surprised by the number of of businesses that don’t do anything differently, not even try to avoid the contraception mandate. Businesses are, first and foremost, interested in making money. Yes, they try to do it in a way that is consistent with their moral and ethical framework, but a company doesn’t survive on ethics alone. Even if they manage to wrangle this ruling into letting them reverse current policies and discriminate against or mistreat female employees do you really think they’ll survive for long? Women (and many men) will go elsewhere to work, and the company will lose that human capital. People who disagree with such actions–which is usually the majority–will stop supporting that company and its products. They may hang in there for a few years, and I know it’s hard to wait that long for social justice to be done, but they will either fall or change their ways. It’s hard enough to survive as a company without changing to fit how everyone else is going. It’s much harder to survive by going backward and canning industry-standard policies.
A celebrity is currently floating the notion that we might feel differently if a Muslim company wanted to impose Sharia Law on its employees. First of all, how dare he malign Muslims. Aren’t we more culturally sensitive than that? Secondly, would anyone apply to work there? Thirdly, would anyone buy from that company? People seem to forget that the market is capable of punishing bad behavior far more readily than the law. You don’t think women who object to how Hobby Lobby wants to do business haven’t already found jobs elsewhere? It’s not like the company hides what they believe. Or, if you still think Mr. Takei’s meme pic is the height of intellectual argument instead of the ridiculous exaggeration it is, go read this and argue with that writer.
In any case, people invoking this argument are clearly not paying attention, nor reading the ruling. IBM is not going to suddenly be able to declare themselves a religiously motivated company in order to avoid added insurance costs. They’re a publicly-owned company, so it would be much harder for them to say that providing contraceptives is against their beliefs, and their stockholders come from all over the spectrum. Even Wal-mart couldn’t claim a religious excemption. Hobby Lobby is a privately owned firm, where it’s quite easy to prove the beliefs of the owners are reflected in the company. You don’t have to look farther than their home page to see it is owned and operated by Christians and adheres to Christian beliefs. And yet they’ve communicated no intent to roll back rights for women employees. There’s no reasonable reason to believe they wanted anything more from this case than the ability to exclude four drugs from the list of 20 requires to provide.
It’s absolutely hilarious how women seem to think that men have so much power they can get whatever they want–and that what they want is complete dominance over women. They think this ruling is going to allow men to put women back in the kitchen making breakfast and babies. I’ve got news for you. If men could do that, why did they let you out in the first place? If men truly are running the world and keeping women down, they’ve sure done a crappy job of it. No one is going to suddenly start forcing all women back into the secretarial pool in the name of religion. If they do they’ll deserve the sudden mass exodus and subsequent bankruptcy they get.
Since when is a company a “person”? Good question. Assuming you are right, how far do you want to take it? Should the concerns of a company, then, only involve making money, with no thought for moral or ethical correctness? My car cannot act morally. I, as a person, can. But when I get in my car, am I still a person? Does my car become a person? If I hit someone…well, we say “I” hit someone, not my car. And yet if I had hit that person myself, they would hardly be hurt at all (yes, I’m a wimp). So the car, at some point, must become a manifestation of me. No one looks at the car and says, “There goes a car with Thom in it.” It’s, “There goes Thom!” or “There goes Thom’s car!” Could it be that a company is not a person, but the manifestation of a person’s will, which is pretty darn close?
If companies cannot be people, and their owners and employees, while acting in the company’s interest, lose their “person-hood”, then what business does a company have in getting involved in the community, giving to charities, championing causes, etc.? Does G.E. regularly poll its stockholders to determine their corporate policies, or what charities or causes to support? Any cause supported, any charity given to generally reflects a personal choice by some individual or small group of individuals, not a corporate one. Otherwise companies should be required to give to all causes or none, as to do otherwise implies a preference and personality that a non-person cannot have. If businesses should remain outside of politics and religion because they are not people, then could not the same be said for unions and non-profits? Yet I see few people who get bent out of shape over the notion of a company being a person simultaneously insisting that unions cannot give to political campaigns because that should be reserved for people.
The fact is, people expect companies to have morals, ethics, and a conscience all the time–and bemoan it when they don’t. But a company cannot have a conscience if it is not a person. If the people running the company shouldn’t allow their personal beliefs enter into running that company, what business do we have getting upset at them when they do something that’s legal, but not moral? Companies can’t be moral if companies aren’t people. My car can’t be moral. Therefore, if a business can’t be a person, then people running a business can’t be responsible for what that business does. Businesses should just pursue profits and leave morality out of it. Legality is all that should guide them, right?
Or is that not such a good idea? Then perhaps we should allow for the people who own and manage a company having a vested interest in how that company does business, and that their religion might play into that at some point. Otherwise we end up with companies with no soul, and no one seems to like it when that happens.
We know life is complicated. It’s a natural human tendency to want to simplify things by lumping everyone you see into convenient buckets. It’s also natural to, when you find a bucket of people opposed to you on a matter, to assume they’re all evil and are only interested in ruining everything you hold dear. It’s a dangerous trap, and a hard one to get out of. I know it’s too much to ask that we not assume the worst of motivations from anyone we disagree with. But can we at least ask that we not be so darned surprised to find they’re just as scared of us as we are of them? You believe that religious people are trying to force their will on everyone and turn the country into their own little theocracy? Well, is it so inconceivable that they might subsequently believe you’re trying to create a world where they have no say at all in anything and are unable to practice their beliefs without being imprisoned or put to death?
And maybe, just maybe, this isn’t going to serve our best interest in the long run if we’re unable to find common ground for fear that the slightest show of weakness or compromise on either part will allow the other side an opening in which to accomplish their long-time goal of destroying all we hold dear. Maybe, just maybe, the average person of religion (granted, there are always going to be the outliers, and on your side, too) won’t try to ban the production of abortofacients and your ability to obtain them, if you can bend far enough to not insist he pay for you to use them. Hey, you and they can still call each other evil for old time sake. But perhaps we can each learn to be a little more careful before we turn to the law to make them suffer.
Or, if all of this is unconvincing, how about I just take the low road and say this: Quit your whinging. You’ve been getting your share of wins in the Game of Courts. You expect me to hold silent and let you celebrate when you win? Well, then be a sport and shut up now. At least I’m not plastering your feed with gloating meme pics like you always do to me, you insensitive twits. And if you’d hold your tongue half as well as you expect me to hold mine, I wouldn’t even have posted this lengthy diatribe. So if you find this post boring and offensive, try not annoying me so often.
You know, I could get to like this saying whatever I want to say without worrying over whether people find it offensive. Thanks for the tip!
