The popularized conception of the Hobby
Lobby case is that it's about contraception and, to a lesser extent,
how big corporations are oppressing our women/pushing their
antiquated beliefs on them. I hope to reflect a bit on the first and
indirectly about the second.
There is a difference between medicines
which are contraceptive as a side effect and those things which are
contraceptive as for the sake of a lifestyle or sexual choice.
Childbirth, and impregnation, are results of sex and thus natural,
i.e., part of the natural process and natural conclusion of a natural
act. Those things which impede the natural process as a side effect
for the sake of a medical benefit are not the issue. Despite moral
objections others or I may have to the actual reason for their use we
cannot assume in any way that their use is intended for a moral evil.
There do exist alternatives, of course, but at that point we can only
suggest them.
One issue emerges, however, from paying
for contraception not as a health issue but as a lifestyle choice.
One example is that someone is likely to take contraception to impede
natural processes if they desire to be sexually active. This sexual
activity is not necessary for their health or well-being, however
much it may (or may not) contribute to, enhance, or supplement their
physical and emotional health. Indeed, increased sexual activity may
also increase the risk of diminishing one's health. Regardless, this
vision of health is not based on necessity but choice, and I think in
these instances employers have reason to take issue. Furthermore,
contraception that induces abortions, i.e., those contraceptives that
disable the fertilized egg from implanting itself on the uterine wall
is, according to others and my consciences, terminating a life.
There are strong cases that can be made
scientifically that that fertilized egg is a human life, even if it
does not have the capacity for action that a fully developed man has.
Many argue that pregnancy begins at the moment the zygote is
implanted, and that human life likewise begins here. This is based on
other scientific reasoning, perhaps, but it is additionally based on
popular beliefs that this life is worth “less” than the mother or
that the fertilized egg is just “a mass of cells” as opposed to a
human being.
No one is forcing anyone to believe one
or the other is true by this ruling, but it is forcing those who want
these abortofacients that we do not share this definition that they
have, even if the phenomena of the fertilized egg occurs in the woman
who believes it is not a human life.
Sadly, to us, she may still choose to
abort this child. At the very least we who hold very strongly that
this zygote is a human life in no way desire to participate formally
(by consent) or materially (by providing proximate or satellite
means) in that termination of life. This particular ruling with Hobby
Lobby confirms this belief.
This being said, matters are not always
as clear as they appear, even after bringing about better
distinctions about what this case is and is not about.
This ruling, then, is not about denying
a woman's health. I also believe that there has been for some time
and that there should be a more public discussion about what
dissenters of this ruling define “health” as, especially how they
describe purely contraceptive/abortofacient means as “health”—I
can only see them defining contraceptives as a form of preventative
health, which to me is a curious evaluation of health (the term)
anyhow.
Likewise, I think the great
disagreements over this case, often encapsulated by the popular
phrase “Keep my boss out of my bedroom,” also strikes at the
heart of the public practice-private beliefs issue. In short,
our private beliefs inform our public practices. To claim that they
could ever be truly separate is at worst a lie and at best a
delusion. Any discussion of justice or rights comes from living
together and discovering which values are best for the common good
and not which values merely allow each to have what he wants—this
perhaps is a biggest disagreement and is an answer that has yet to be
found, ever. This claim, however, strikes at the heart of the matter.
Where we would like to construct a value system that gave us what we
wanted, our values may inevitably conflict with the beliefs and
values of others.
We could, as some have tried, to
struggle so that our values are so valueless that each gets what he
wants. Human beings, however, do not regard beliefs as valueless.
Even the desire as some to find the perfect value-neutral rules hold
these rules as having supreme legal, personal, or rational value.
Ultimately, if the Hobby Lobby case has taught us anything, is that
we as men and women living together in society can not escape a
serious discussion about values. Public policy and the common good
don't make sense otherwise.
I would also highly recommend this article by
No comments:
Post a Comment