Access to safe, effective birth control has been a key component to women’s liberation in the past few decades. The ability to protect against pregnancy and/or plan for motherhood has given women access to a much wider world of life choices than ever before, from their intimate relationships to their careers. Restricting access to birth control is a step backwards for women’s equality and should not be embraced at any level.
To that end, the Affordable Care Act includes provisions to promote birth control, requiring large, for-profit employers to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services ”“ with no co-pay.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week in the cases of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties stores, both private, family-owned, for-profit corporations whose owners claim the law violates their personal religious freedom. Lower courts have issued mixed opinions on this issue, hence the Supreme Court cases.
The Green family, which owns the Hobby Lobby chain, wants an exemption so they do not have to offer insurance coverage for the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and intrauterine devices, according to news reports, because they believe these forms of contraception can result in abortions ”“ to which they are vehemently opposed.
Abortions are not covered by the ACA, in any form, however, and scientifically reputable sources agree that these forms of contraception do not cause abortions. Rather, they prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place.
At the heart of this dispute is the question of whether or not a corporation should be treated like an individual. As we said previously when this issue arose with the campaign finance restrictions, we believe the answer is a resounding “no,” due to the impact on actual individuals if it were otherwise.
Religious beliefs run the gamut, including rejection of blood transfusions and relying only on prayer to cure disease. Religious freedom is at the core of who we are as Americans, and we have decided as a society that any adult of sound mind can make these decisions for themselves. With the ACA insurance regulations, no one is forcing people to use birth control of any sort if it is against their religious beliefs. Such a violation of individual choice would be unthinkable.
All the law is saying is that this preventive care and medicine should be covered and available to all women, should they choose to use it, because of its significant benefits.
Those who work for a religious entity such as a church or parochial school should expect that workplace to follow the rules of the faith with which it is affiliated, and the ACA has made special provisions for these situations. Workers should not be left guessing, however, as to whether a craft store or other outwardly secular business has owners who can impose their faith upon all the employees via curtailed insurance coverage.
The owners have a right to their own religious beliefs about health care, but they should not have a right to impose those beliefs via their corporation’s health care coverage.
We believe Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said it best when he sought to focus the court on the employees’ rights in arguments for the Obama administration Tuesday:
“In the entire history of this country, there is not a single case in which a for-profit corporation was granted an exemption” on religious liberty grounds, when that would harm the rights of others, he said.
Individual rights are at stake here, and corporations are not individuals. Religious freedom and full access to the health care system as prescribed by law should be available to all individual citizens of the U.S., regardless of who owns the company for which they work.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
