Monday, July 14, 2014

Lobbying for a proper Hobby

We were just getting a cup of Starbucks coffee when we noticed a group of protesters. They were causing some to blow their car or truck horns in support, I guess. We, my wife and I, took a while to figure out just what was the issue here.

One sign said, "keep your eye on crafts, not crotches," or something to that effect. At a red light, as we turned towards Starbucks, we got it. They were up in arms, or crotches I guess, about the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decisions.

Now, I've been kind of silent lately about controversial subjects because I've been up to my elbows in work at the church. But this, interfering with my morning coffee, this I had to react to.

In case you've been Lost on an island, this is the issue: A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations cannot be made to provide contraception coverage for their employees.

The court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties that the Obama administration failed to show that the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act is the "least restrictive means of adding its interest" in providing birth control at no cost to women.

The ruling by Justice Samuel Alito said, "Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law (and) the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs.

The wonderfully written Affordable Care act contains a provision requiring most employers to cover the full range of contraception at no cost to their female employees. An exemption was made in the law for churches and religious hospitals, schools and nonprofits.

Hobby Lobby, which every acknowledges is a Christian-owned craft supply chain store, hence the sign above, challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious freedom because some forms of birth control -- emergency contraception and intrauterine devices -- are forms of abortion.

I want it noted at this point that I actually did research for this.

Here's the deal. I get the argument from women that it is their body and they are in charge of it. I get that argument. I disagree vehemently, but I get the argument. I am so far against the notion of abortion in most forms (oh, we can still discuss the notion of incest and rape), that I can't begin to even write how badly it moves me that we kills babies, still.

However, I don't get at all that someone, anyone would want to make someone else pay for the privilege.

Listen, if someone wants to sin -- and yes, I believe abortion to be sin if that wasn't previously clear enough -- they have every right. God himself allows this, sadly to say. I also get that in the nation of my birth it is the law of that land.

But the notion that someone, particularly the government of that land, can make someone pay for that right is simply, to me (the write of the opinion) ludicrous.

Of course, Democrats rallied against the decision, introducing legislation that would overrun that ruling.

See, the court's argument was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that dictates that an individuals' religious expression wouldn't be substantially burdened by a law unless there was a "compelling government interest.

Democrats said the Court used its decision to allow employers to deny critical medical care to those employees.

Well, poppycock, as I understand it.

Hobby Lobby owners objected to four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the ACC mandate. They were perfectly willing to pay for the other 14 methods. And they didn't even object to the others as much as they objected to PAYING for them.

Come on. There is no constitutional right to birth control, as I understand it. Certainly there is no constitutional right to have someone else pay for it.

I hailed the Court's ruling because to me it indicates there is still a bit of reasonableness with the Court, that everything isn't cut and dried against the notion of religious freedom. That's only in the lower courts.

But to see folks carrying signs and protesting only reminds me that we're still not on the same page. We still have folks who will paint signs and wave them even if the cause is a non-starter. Maybe they bought the paint and poster board at Hobby Lobby.




No comments: