I’ve been appalled at the criticisms leveled at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Hobby Lobby this week. Frank Schaeffer called it a “Victory For Ultra-Right Roman Catholic Co-Conspirators With Chuck Colson’s Ghost.” Brooklyn Magazine breathlessly , bemoaned, “Less Than Human: How the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Reduces Women to Nothing More than Baby-Incubators.”
I could have listed dozens more reactions like those. They’ve got the whole thing wrong. I’m thankful they have the freedom to get things wrong. Are they?
There’s no hiding the fact that I support Hobby Lobby’s position with respect to abortifacients.* But this case wasn’t primarily about that. It was about freedom of conscience: the freedom to have an opinion, to express it, and to act on it according to one’s own convictions rather than government coercion.
Those who have called it a war on women or an attack on Obama himself (as Schaeffer said) have misunderstood this, but thankfully, they have the freedom to be wrong about that. We all have the freedom to be wrong. Because of this decision, Hobby Lobby and its owners have retained the freedom to be wrong. I think their position is right, but if I’m wrong, I’m grateful I have that freedom, too.
We should all be grateful, in fact. In a case like this one, remember, the freedom to be wrong is equivalent to the freedom to disagree with what the government says, based on deeply held convictions of conscience. It’s our most basic and essential freedom, without which our democracy would be a tyranny instead.
You’d think that those who call themselves “liberals” would favor liberty of that sort.
I wish all my fellow Americans an early Happy Independence Day.
*Despite reports the contrary, Hobby Lobby never refused to pay for contraception. Their issue was only with drugs that end pregnancies already begun.
The first commenter to complain that this was a victory for misogyny or a war on women will be the first commenter to prove he or she doesn’t get it.
It’s funny how “keep the government out of my sex life” cries are immediately discarded the moment it’s decided that the government is actually quite attractive.
I don’t see how you can blatantly say “They’ve got the whole thing wrong,” because it’s a complex issue. Surely you can see some justification on both sides, no?
You say the case wasn’t really about abortion, but it was about freedom of conscience or freedom of speech. Well, the case is about many things.
What about the question of whether companies can be said to have religious beliefs? That seems pretty questionable to me. Even if one person owns 100% of a company’s capital, does that mean the company is simply an extension of its owner?
You could think of it as a labor relations decision. Should a company owner have control over such-and-such, or should workers have a say? In this case, I could perhaps stand on the owner’s side, but how far should we go, and where do worker rights come in?
Hobby Lobby covered the contraceptives they were suing over until Obamacare was passed and were approached with the suggestion to sue ( http://bit.ly/1lVl6ff ), which is probably what prompts the suggestion that this is “an attack on Obama”. They claim they didn’t know these things were covered until then. Meanwhile, they are also making money by investing in the companies that make the contraceptives they object to. And they buy products from China, which has an aggressive abortion policy. Whether those two things support the claim that they are ignorant where their money goes or that they are just hypocrites happy to sue the Obama admin is up in the air I suppose.
However, the principle in play here is religious freedom vs. “compelling government interest”. SCOTUS was careful to say that the decision applies only to the contraception mandate, but it isn’t hard to see how this will lead to additional challenges, and indeed there are reports already of attempts to legitimize discrimination against LGBT workers. http://read.bi/1lVmkXC
John, perhaps you should ask Apple of Facebook or the myriad of other companies that apparently have no problem applauding and funding gay rights and gay “marriage”.
Were you vocal and did you criticize them and tell them that their vocal public funding and support of these issues is also complicated.
Here is a list of some of the big vocal companies btw:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/companies-support-gay-marriage_n_3503981.html
Can you provide a reference with respect to Tom’s qualification regarding their stance on abortifacients, please. I don’t live in the US so I might not be privy to such information. Also, even if Hobby Lobby are hypocrites, what has that got to do with the ruling?
And with this objection (and your links) it looks to me like you are clawing for some dirt to throw. If Hobby Lobby does business with companies in China (and let’s face the fact that you can’t help but do business with Chinese companies either directly or indirectly) it’s a far cry from supporting a certain social or political stance on abortion.
I hope that you aren’t applying double standards when it comes to criticism of Hobby Lobby’s decision to do business with Chinese companies. Given China’s rotten human rights record, and what I suspect is your belief in promoting certain human rights (see your LGBT link as evidence), you carefully vet each and every product you own to make sure that it doesn’t have that awful “made in China” mark, right?
Tom, the statement you quoted from Rich Lowry was his intentionally sarcastic (or perhaps ironic) comment mocking those who claim such of the Supreme Court. He should not be lumped in with Frank Schaeffer and his kind. National Review is a right of center political magazine.
I’ll fix it. Thanks. I could explain to you what was going on here while I made that mistake but it would just be lame, so I’ll simply acknowledge it and correct it.
Okay, John, I’ll nuance that statement for you.
They’ve got the most important thing wrong, and they’re wholly wrong about what the most important thing really is.
I don’t agree with the notion of for-profit corporations having religious beliefs – that seems to be piercing the corporate veil in a problematic way.
On the other hand, the earlier ruling that the corporate health care requirement is a ‘tax’ and not a ‘mandate’ seem specious to me. I’d much rather have something like the Dutch health care system rather than the accidental hodgepodge the U.S. currently has – and I think that’d be more clearly Constitutional.
So I half-agree. I think that Hobby Lobby shouldn’t have to do what they objected to, but not on the grounds they used to object to it.
I have always thought that the term “pro-choice” was little more than an empty, if not disingenuous, euphemism. The reaction to the Hobby-Lobby ruling proves this to be true. Clearly if you are pro-choice there is only one choice. Abortion is the only choice. In other words, pro-choice= pro-abortion. That is all it means. That’s all it has ever meant. But it doesn’t stop there. Notice what the government was trying to do: it was trying to force a privately owned company to pay for an abortifacient against it’s own moral code. Nobody has taken away “a woman’s right to choose” here. But what right does a woman have to demand that someone else pay for her choice? Like I said with pro-choice there is only one choice.
Clearly if you are pro-choice there is only one choice. Abortion is the only choice.
I would imagine that the immediate response from the pro-choice side would be something along the lines of there being two choices: to have an abortion or not. That in itself is a fair observation. But it’s obvious that merely having more options is not in itself a good thing, especially if one of the options is potentially immoral. An appropriate response to “don’t want an abortion, don’t have one” is something along the lines of “don’t want a slave then don’t have one”.
Admittedly, I was being somewhat sarcastic. However, when you look at the context of what the U.S. gov’t. (the Obama administration) was trying to do in the Hobby Lobby case, you’ll notice that people (the Green family) who were morally opposed to abortion were being forced to pay for it. What about their choice? It appears to me the only free choice which is completely acceptable is one, at least in the minds of those who are pro-choice, is one that supports abortion.
Tom,
Let’s suppose we have a Jehovah’s-Witness-owned chain business owner that sincerely believes blood transfusions are wrong. Should this religious owner be free to have an opinion of conscience, express it, and act on it to prevent his employees from receiving medical insurance that provides blood transfusions?
There are a host of medical treatments and procedures now and in the future that can conceivably be religiously controversial besides abortion: in-vitro fertilization, use of embryonic stem cells, psychoactive drug treatments, vaccinations, etc. It seems likely that if health care is to be understood in America as a basic human right, religious objections from the owner of one’s place of business should not affect in any way the nature of one’s health insurance.
I suppose, in so far as I understand this case, I can perhaps understand some slippery concerns. However, let’s not compare abortifacients – which I believe are very cheap and easy to procure – to blood transfusions. Or perhaps Target are now selling bags of blood?
I have heard people claim that of the 4 drugs involved (some of them at least) are technically not abortifacients and that they actually prevent conception. Can anyone stet the record straight?
Health care is not the same as health insurance. You can be denied insurance for all kinds of reasons. If you need a transfusion, just walk into the ER and you’ll get one even if you cannot pay for it.
Billy, as I understand it the ambiguity rests in the definition of conception. Some say it happens when the sperm enters the egg, others say it’s not until the fertilized egg implants in the placenta. These drugs act between the two points in the process, so by one definition they interrupt a pregnancy, by another definition they prevent one.
djc, the point of decision is in “compelling state interest.” There is hardly any compelling state interest in supporting in vitro fertilization.
I understand that we have a right to our own opinions and beliefs, but the point of fact is that no one is pro abortion. No one likes it. It’s just a matter of the women’s choice. I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to pay in support of it, but for those in support of this Supreme court ruling while trying to abolish abortion just seems hypocritical to me, and anti choice as well.
Taylor, please see my first comment here and see if you recognize yourself there.
@Billy Squibs (re:6)
Not sure what you mean by “Tom’s qualification regarding their stance on abortifacients”, or how I would reference his qualification. Can you clarify?
As for what hypocrisy has to do with the ruling, the law requires a “sincere religious belief” in order to object. How sincere can your belief be if you are making money off of the very thing you are objecting to? Regardless, it provides some context for some of the outrage at the ruling, which many conservatives seem mystified by.
So, I’m not “clawing for some dirt”. I agree with the general idea expressed by the SCOTUS majority that religious objections are held in tension with “compelling government interest”. The question that we will all disagree over is what constitutes such an interest.
And while I can agree that doing business with China INdirectly is probably unavoidable, the extent to which Hobby Lobby does DIRECT business obviously is. So, while it may not be as direct as their past coverage of abortifacients or investments in abortifacient manufacturers, it’s still substantial support. And that applies to your comment about double-standards: a certain amount of indirect support of China is no doubt unavoidable. But I also don’t open accounts from sweat shops and buy directly***.
***and Hobby Lobby may not either. I’ll have to be honest and say I don’t know the exact form their business takes.
@Taylor Matthews (re:21)
If you belief the contraception(s) in question are actually abortifacients (as many do), then it really isn’t that hard to understand at all.
JB Chappell:
Regarding issues of hypocrisy, answers 3 and 4 on this link might be pertinent:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-02/answers-to-all-your-hobby-lobby-questions
Huh, I tried posting up a link in response to JB Chappell’s post @ 21, but it doesn’t seem to have appeared. I’ll try again with spaces:
http:// www. Bloomberg view. com/ articles/ 2014-07-02/ answers-to-all-your-hobby-lobby-questions
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-02/answers-to-all-your-hobby-lobby-questions
Billy Squibs,
True, but I’m responding to Tom’s claim that “this case wasn’t primarily about [abortifacients]. It was about freedom of conscience…”
It’s two morning after drugs, Plan B, and Ella, and two types of IUD, hormonal and copper. These all are clearly aimed at preventing fertilization, but it seems theoretically possible that they could help prevent implantation of fertilized egg as well. Indeed, the latter happens naturally about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time anyway (natural abortion of fertilized egg).
Some wiki links:
Plan B
Ella
IUDs
I can’t imagine what any of that has to do with freedom of conscience or freedom of religion. Does it have any relevance at all?
Tom,
But if “compelling state interest” can be overridden by religious concerns, why couldn’t access to in vitro fertilization be restricted as well?
My understanding is that the phrase “compelling state interest” is the status quo that prevents Hobby Lobby from claiming any health insurance exemption. Incidental burden on religious freedom is assumed necessary if there is compelling state interest. What is notable in this case is that “compelling state interest” was overruled.
The decision and the law do not say that compelling state interest can be overridden by religious concerns, and the point of the case was that the mandate in question did not constitute compelling state interest.
Maybe I’m just tired after a long week, but I can’t figure what the first sentence in your last paragraph means. If you’d like to do so you might re-state it in other words; it might help me.
@The original Mr. X & Billy Squibs (re: 23-25)
#3 is not that convincing for reasons I’ve already outlined. If anything, what Hobby Lobby has demonstrated is that they really weren’t that concerned about where their money was going until it started going towards Obamacare.
#4 is even less convincing, because there are all kinds of ways to ensure that you will not be investing in morally problematic funds.
It is entirely possible that until someone approached them to sue, they had no idea that their money was going towards some of this stuff. But I’m not about to give a huge corporation the benefit of the doubt on not realizing where their dollars are headed. That’s partly how you become a successful business.
JB, could you take a look at my comment #1 and see whether you recognize yourself there? Thank you.
Can you provide me with a link to support your statement that HL are making money off the drugs they object to? Despite my qualification, which was unnecessary and has confused matters, it’s not a trick question.
So you are stating that Hobby Lobby is essentially applying double standards by dealing with Chinese companies because of the strong support for abortion on both societal and Governmental policy levels? Do you then think that HL should stop trading with American companies for the same reasons? (How many abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade?) Maybe they should pull out of the US all together?
But why stop there? Thankfully you carefully vet all of your purchases to make sure that they have not been purchased in China. But for everyone else out there – every time you are too lazy to check the origin of a product and you end up buying a Chinese product you are automatically supporting the brutality of Tienanmen Square. There is absolutely no other way of interpreting the situation.
Tom (re:31),
Have I said anything about this being a discrimination situation? No. In fact, I’ve already said that I agree with the premise that religious rights are held in tension with “compelling government interest”. The points that I’m making are related to why people have (partially) reacted so vehemently against the decision, a phenomenon that many conservatives just don’t seem to understand. In at least a few aspects, I think critics make a valid point. It may be spilled milk at this point, but nevertheless I think there are some legitimate gripes.
@Billy Squibs (re:32)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Regarding the contraception manufacturers: http://bit.ly/1ooP5P5
If Hobby Lobby is making money off of American companies that actively sponsor abortions, then YES, that is hypocritical. i don’t see how that is even debatable. For some reason, you want to claim that this is less so with China, because avoiding business with them is difficult. Sure it is, and I said as much. The question is whether they are trying to avoid it or not. Neither one of us really knows that answer I imagine, but it doesn’t appear to me that they are. But I could be wrong.
Everytime anyone purchases a product from China, you are indirectly supporting human rights violations and a government that sponsors abortions. There is no way around that. However, as you have pointed out, it is pretty difficult to avoid China-made products at this point, as even some products that say “Made in the USA” (or somewhere else) are, well, lying.
The level of hypocrisy one might be engaging in with such activity is directly related to the level with which you claim you have a problem with supporting such phenomena. Hobby Lobby was willing finance a trip all the way to the Supreme Court, which is quite a bit of time, effort, and money. That they don’t seem to be extending that effort elsewhere is at least noteworthy, especially when the principle at issue in the court decision involves *sincere* religious belief.
Now, being a hypocrite does not *necessarily* make your beliefs less sincere. I want to make that clear. But it can certainly call them into question.
And for those of you who still don’t seem to appreciate the significance of such (apparent) hypocrisy: ONE of the concerns brought from this decision is that it seems like now prety much anyone could CLAIM that they have a religious belief for this-or-that, simply to save some money.
I’m not entirely familiar with how such a proceeding would go, or if/how such a person/institution would go about establishing that their belief is sincere. But this case provides at least some evidence that the burden of proof is fairly low.
JB @33, then you agree, apparently, that the SCOTUS decision preserves the right to be wrong (or right).
Why the sour grapes over such a basic liberty?
They could. Undoubtedly they will. In fact they have. It would hardly be the first time if someone did it again. Yet we’ve found ways to survive it, and the Republic has not collapsed.
Take away basic freedom of belief, though, and there is no Republic left to collapse. It’s only tyranny at that point.
This is so basic to Western liberal democracy, I cannot understand how anyone could dispute it. The only explanation I can think of is that too many ideologues are too content with the fact that the ideologues currently in power agree with their ideology. It’s a convenient position for you to be in for now. What will you do when it isn’t? I think you’ll call for freedom of expression as a basic right. If and when that happens, I’ll agree with that basic right just as loudly as I do now.
OK, thanks for the link. I’ll admit it looks bad. But at the same time the article criticising the hypocrisy of HL goes on to admit that “each fund’s portfolio consists of at least dozens if not hundreds of different holdings” and I would assume that theses holding change over time. You apparently get a pass when you buy a washing machine that has Chinese parts that according to your logic funds the suppression and torture of Chinese citizens. I don’t see why HL isn’t afforded the same when it transpires that they made unwise investments. I would hope that they now shed their investment portfolios of companies directly involved in the business of facilitating abortions.
You didn’t answer one of my questions. Given that you are setting the bar here can you tell me that if we apply your logic should Hobby Lobby withdrawn from the US? After all, every time they pay tax they are supporting a Government and a society that approves of abortion. What is it now … 40 million abortions since the 70’s.
@Tom (re: 36),
The “sour grapes” is not over the ruling, it’s a misgiving over how it transpired, as well as some frustration with the general “anyone who doesn’t celebrate everything about this decision is a fascist” mentality amongst so many conservatives.
re:37 – I am not trying to paint a doomsday scenario. However, exceptions that are so cheaply handed out are more easily abused. And rights that are abused are more liable to be taken away (see: gun control controversy). I would like to see a bit more vetting when it comes to someone claiming they have a “sincere religious belief”, but perhaps that is just impractical.
@Billy Squibs (re: 39)
For a company that is careful enough not to sell shot glasses, I’m not inclined to believe that someone in management isn’t savvy enough to know that there are ways to avoid investing in morally objectionable funds. But is it possible? Sure.
I’ve already explained why Hobby Lobby doesn’t get a pass when it comes to this. The average American consumer doesn’t file federal lawsuits trying to get out of paying for things they find morally objectionable. But if Average Joe did, in fact, do such a thing – and then turned around and was making money off of the very thing he was suing over – you better believe he wouldn’t be getting a pass either.
It seems to me like I at least addressed most of your questions. Dealing with American companies is not the same with respect to the issue of abortion/human rights than it is with dealing Chinese companies. For one, whatever dollars are funneled to the American government during a transaction are not really guaranteed to sponsor an abortion. The US allows abortions in some circumstances; it does not require them. That’s a significant difference. Furthermore, although I can’t say for sure that NO tax dollars could be used to fund an abortion in the US, it certainly isn’t nearly as likely as it is in China. Also a significant difference.
As for withdrawing from the US, you are now just being ridiculous. Where would such a company go? Name a utopian government that doesn’t suffer from some moral flaw that you might be funding with tax dollars.
OK, fair enough. But we will have to agree to disagree on this. While I think that this is embarrassing a\nd damaging aspect to the story for HL I can also sympathise with their apparent ignorance. I worked in the financial services industry – specifically in fund management – for a brief and largely unhappy time and I know how large and confusing these managed portfolios can be. This is the case if we are talking about diverse product lines and services within companies or diverse product lines or services within subsidiaries of companies.
I can think of a direct parallel with HL. The Church of England was guilty of the same egg-on-your-face ignorance when it was discovered that they held shares in Wonga, a rather unsavoury and immoral pay-day loan company that Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had previously and sincerely denounced as latter-day usurers. Wonga basically feed of the poor who need cash advances and charge them outrageous interest rates for the privilege. So while it was highly embarrassing that he was loudly criticising a company it which later transpired he, in a complex and indirect sense, owned shares in, I don’t think it was hypocrisy on his part.
Is ignorance and excuse? I would say that answer is generally no. However, considering we are talking about and questioning the sincerity of beliefs held I would think ignorance can be a justified excuse if we are inclined to think that the Greens would have acted differently if they had intimate knowledge of each of the hundreds of companies in their investment portfolio. The question for the future then become “can HL now keep their investment portfolio clean?”. I actually think that the answer to this is probably “not really”. If you dig deep enough then there will always be some objectionable association is some subsidiary or such. Still, I would think that they they better try their damnedest.
That is a significant different but not one that is particularly relevant to the discussion we are having. I was born and live in a country that only permits abortion in the most limited of circumstances. Whatever about China, I find America’s general stance on abortion (and I realise it differs at State level) to be appalling. Given that Planned Parenthood receives federal funding and President Obama enthusiastically endorses the work of PP your reasoning leaves me cold. Please note that this is the same PP whose staff have been caught promoting illegal sex selective abortions.
I would suggest that you can know the answer to this. PP are directly funded by the government – albeit with he stipulation that they can’t use these funds directly for abortions (and why not if there is nothing wrong with abortions?). Instead they use the money to support their entire enterprise. Now if you are going to criticize HL for tacitly supporting abortion in China by doing business with Chinese companies then why not criticise HL for doing business with American companies?
Of course it’s ridiculous. That is the point of a reductio ad absurdum. I’m not suggesting there is a Utopian government out there – which is sort of the point. What I’m trying to make clear is that you are not applying your criticisms evenly and if you did it would result in a foolish conclusion.
While China enforces abortion, the US has enshrined the right to an abortion into law and actively promotes it to the point of federal funding and the President waxing lyrical about the work of the number one abortion provider in the country. Yet this is somehow unworthy of consideration when you are making your criticism.
Tom,
The mandate did constitute compelling state interest, but the Court decided in favor because it wasn’t the least restrictive means available. Here’s the quote from page 8 of the opinion (pulled from NYTimes):
What this means is that every time a religious belief clashes with compelling government interest in the health care arena, the restrictive means test will come in to play. This, and the recent Wheaton decision, has the affect of forcing the government to be single payer for all controversial health care practices.
Now, maybe moving in the direction of single-payer is a good idea. But it seems it will have the affect of unnecessarily complicating health insurance for anyone who works for a religiously-owned business.
Yeah, because the response from the left was so reasonable and measured.
Tom,
In what way did I say that this was either an attack on women’s rights. I simply stated one aspect that abortion attains to. For you to simply state that people don’t get it because their “wrong” is pretty short sighted. Of course there is more to this than misogyny but it doesn’t mean that their arguments are invalid. Even though this is what people tend to really complain about from what I’ve heard. But after all aren’t they “free to be wrong”?
Taylor, my point in referring you to my first comment was this. When you complained about, “those in support of this Supreme court ruling while trying to abolish abortion” seeming “hypocritical to me, and anti choice as well,” you missed the point of the post, which is that whether someone is hypocritical or pro choice or anti choice, the court preserved their freedom to be wrong–or right.
So Taylor, those that support this ruling are “anti choice”. Can I ask you, why the euphemism? Anti choice? What “choice” is that you are referring to. The choice to murder one’s own child? And please, that’s what abortion is, murder. Even those that support it admit that. But you want to hide behind the euphemism while you call others hypocritical?
Bill,
I’m right on board with you that abortion is murder or at least immoral, depending on the situation, but if abortion is abolished then people will find ways to go through with it anyway. It’s better if the government has control over this to protect the women’s health who choose to go through with abortion and to do it in a good/healthy environment. But regarding Hobby Lobby, My first comment was out of my own personal confusion in trying to come to terms with how I felt about this ruling. Hypocrisy is just something I’ve found hard to differentiate from actual immorality. I simply saw that those who truly believed in their own religious practice were preventing giving their workers the “care” that they needed/wanted. While we have the freedom of religion we also have the freedom from religion. But I have also realized that the workers have chosen to work for this company and have the choice to leave as well. It’s their choice. So when I called them hypocrites, I was simply seeing abortion in a situational stand point. NOT for what it really is. However, Something JB stated earlier was that “being a hypocrite does not *necessarily* make your beliefs less sincere. I want to make that clear. But it can certainly call them into question.” Even if Hobby Lobby does not want to support contraceptions but have definite choice in how they handle this belief, it does not make their own belief any less valid. but it still works the same for those who are anti abolishment of abortion while also dissagreing with this case.
I also did not say or mean that those who supported this ruling were anti choice. It just seemed to me at the time that as a whole, religious support in a government standing would have its contradictions that would hurt more than help. But I now believe that the Supreme court made the best decision int he long run. I’m sorry if I offended you.
OK, so let’s grant this.
Please substitute abortion with something that horrifies you – rape, slavery, torture, whatever – and then apply the same logic yu used to justify this horrific act. If you sincerely believe that abortion is murder (or at least immoral given unstated circumstances) then regulating the deed doesn’t make it right at all. What you have done is placed placed the potential health of the woman – and, really, what does that even mean? – above the certain destruction of the unborn human which you even go as far as to say is murder in certain circumstances.
I would strongly advise you to list to this debate between Nadine Strossen and Scott Klusendorf. Both make compelling cases for their opposing positions. See yowho you though makes the better case.
But the do support contraception, Taylor. If you work for HL you can get not just 1, 5 or 10 forms of contraception. You can get 16 different flavours. I don’t even live in the US – hell, I didn’t know what HL sold until about 15 minutes ago – but even I know that they never objected to contraception.
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
source
Taylor,
You didn’t offend me. I was just clarifying the position you were taking and the wording you were using. I find the position that the government is “protecting women’s health” by legalizing abortion abhorrent. Just how is allowing women to murder their unborn children protecting their health. There couldn’t be anything more damaging to women’ s health than allowing them to murder their children.
We do have freedom of religion. I, however, can’t seem to find your freedom from religion in the Constitution. Perhaps you could provide a reference.
I’m sorry let me clarify. When I said contraceptions, I meant usage of the morning after pill and such it was my mix up.
Now you said to compare abortion to something that disgusts me. Okay so lets go with abuse of illegal drugs. Even though usage of these drugs are in a sense “abolished”, people still find ways to use this drug and usually in areas where sanitation isn’t the best. ‘Though their health may be at risk already now its at an even worse state or the potential to damage them even worse. Now sure marijuana may be legal and still not have an iron grip on distribution. Of course though if the government does mandate strict control of this process than it should become virtually unreachable unless in extreme situations. It’s not a perfect analogy but I hope it gets my point across. And if you don’t think that illegal drug abuse is disgusting, I suggest you look up the film “Montana Meth” if you haven’t already seen it.
And, if you consider murder in self defense to be justified than you can see that if a mother’s life s threatened by going through with the pregnancy, than she does have the choice of whether to go through with abortion. Is it better to have the mother die as well? i just think that this is the only true morally justified time that a woman can think about aborting her baby. But when a child holds a gun at you, you don’t kill the child, you just try to get the gun away, but sadly in a situation like this you can’t really take away the gun. Hopefully technology will advance to the point that abortion will never have to be considered again. But I can see why that some people that would give birth to a disabled child may abort the baby in a “mercy kill” of sorts. However most of the time it’s an act of selfishness, and they just doesn’t want to deal with the child which is not justified. I don’t agree but I can see why the “moral people” would abort for this reason.
And for freedom from religion, look up the supreme court case Wallace v. Jafree (1985)