I've thought about it for days, and I still haven't quite gripped how to approach it.
Oh, I know how I feel about it. That's not the problem.
The problem is that there are so many bad things about it, and so much spurious nonsense about it, I don't know where to begin.
And I'm having trouble calming down about it. Never a good sign in trying to have a civil conversation.
So we'll focus this Soapbox with some of the things I have heard in defense of the ruling:
1) Hobby Lobby is a good company, who pays better than average wages and gives their employees Sunday off.
Well, they are to be commended for those things. Paying better than normal for retail jobs, and giving workers a guaranteed day of rest each week, are laudable things. They also have retirement funds invested in companies that make the drugs they want to not offer to employees, their management is disproportionately male, and they a great deal of business with China, a country that limits families to one child and is very aggressive in all forms of birth control, including abortion. Ultimately though, Hobby Lobby's ranking of it's overall qualities as a company and employer is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Should they, as employers, as your boss, control your access to the full range of medical choices?
2) What's the big deal? 16 out of 20 methods are still permitted.
Because the door has been cracked. What if it had been 5 out of 20 they wanted out of? Do you think the ruling would have been different? I think not. 6 out of 20? More? The right wing majority of the Supreme Court that voted for this did not say. For all we know, the ruling would have been the same if it had been all 20.
3) The methods excluded are abortion drugs, abortion inducing, abortificants.
Uhhh, not really, no. Not according to the scientific and medical opinion I've been able to find. That does not mean that some might have philosophical or religious objections to them. Some of the ones banned operate on the same principal as those allowed, including some forms of birth control pills that Hobby Lobby has left in. The Plan B that is excluded, can be replicated with some degree of success, simply by taking a higher dose of regular birth control pills.
4) Why should I as a taxpayer or fellow insuree pay for women to have a drug so they can go out and have sex?
I am particularly upset about this one, and I'm sick of hearing it. Yes, I know that some of the methods have other uses and purposes besides just strictly birth control. There are many reasons that women take the pill, many that have to do with important health issues. They have been used in the past by people I am close with for those very reasons. But I have to tell my liberal friends, when we argue solely on those grounds, we are giving in to their point. Yeah, women use them so they can more easily have sex without unwanted pregnancies. Because, you know what? Many women like sex as much as men (who certainly have no problem getting Viagra and vasectomies covered). And sex and reproductive health is a part of medical reality, whether recreational or not. Enough with the double standard. Enough with the slut shaming. I'm sick of it.
5) If these women really want it, let them pay for it themselves.
Oh, yowza, that sounds fair. So just because who their employer is they should have less than the full range of medical coverage the rest of us get (although now that Pandora's Box has been opened - there may be more of us in that boat than we think - for all kinds of exceptions). And for those who say, just go out and get a different job - shame on you. You just explained these are better paying entry level jobs for women, and the economy is such that jobs are just growing on trees, aren't they? No, people shouldn't have to give up their jobs to get decent health care. That was part of the point of the Affordable Health Care Act.
6) The Supreme Court deliberately limited the decision to just this case, so what is the big deal?
The big deal is their restriction is meaningless. It's no more than an opinion that lower courts may or may not follow. They didn't close the door entirely, and more cases will come through. My question to supporters of this is why do you think this will be the only one? Why do you think this is the one exception to over 200 years of jurisprudence? What is more special about this, than say, eliminating birth control all together? Do Jehovah Witness owned companies have a right to exclude blood transfusions? What about discrimination against LGBT people? Do Islamic companies have a right to impose Sharia law? I have not gotten a real clear answer from my conservative friends. WHERE DOES IT STOP???????
Those are the major defenses I have heard. If you have heard of any others, please let me know. I hope to address, in the near future, why this ruling is so damaging, and I can update this article, or include it my next one with any additional defenses.
THIS IS PART ONE OF TWO. FOLLOW UP TO COME NEXT WEEK.
No comments:
Post a Comment