Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in the case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby. By now you have certainly heard that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, setting precedence that employers are not required to provide contraception, which was originally mandated as a result of the Affordable Care Act. This ruling is a huge victory for religious liberty.
As I scanned the twittersphere yesterday, I came across many opinions that seemed to express outrage. Predictably, the political left has now “lost faith” in the Supreme Court. From what I gather, the primary liberal argument is twofold: 1) companies should not infringe on women’s sexual rights and 2) religious beliefs should not be forced on individuals. However, just as the Supreme Court determined neither argument was valid, I too find myself agreeing with such logic.
I have never understood the attitude of entitlement within the United States. Maybe that is because I had my first part-time job at the age of 12. Early on I learned the meaning of discipline and hard-work. As a result, I have always refused and resented handouts. Perhaps this is one reason I am emotionally opposed to companies being mandated to provide contraceptives. I would never expect contraceptives to be provided to me. If I was involved in a sexual relationship, it would be my personal responsibility to access and purchase contraception, not that of my employers.
On that token, logically, companies should not have to provide contraceptives to prevent the consequences of an individual’s personal behavior for the very reason that preventative measures can be taken by the individual to prevent 100% of the consequences (pregnancy and/or STD’s) of their behavior…that is if the individual was truly concerned about the consequences of their behaviors. This is why this issue is not so much a women’s rights issue as it is a fight to have businesses fund individual promiscuity. Hence, Hobby Lobby was well in their legal right to refuse to pay for contraceptives, regardless of religious affiliation.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling does not diminish women’s rights, since the decision does not impact a woman’s choice to use any type of contraception she deems appropriate. The argument then becomes an issue of affordability: If a woman cannot afford every type of contraception because her employer refuses to cover it, does this infringe upon her rights to have access to the contraception she wants? However, the issue of affordability is separate from the issue of women’s rights. Affordability does not eliminate freedom of choice. Additionally, if affordability was such a concern, abstinence is a completely free form of contraception and it has been proven to be the most effective option.
Overall, I am satisfied by the High Court’s decision. Not only was the decision logical, it also protects a very essential liberty guaranteed by the Constitution: religious freedom.