Mostly , in this personal journal, I don’t wax political, but this week, after thinking so much about the Supreme Court’s recent decision, I just can’t help myself. I was gratified to read the SJ’s response to this painful question in this morning’s paper. Right there next to blurbs about last weekend’s multicultural festival, soccer, and the Fourth of July, I found this bold and risky column:
OUR VIEWPOINT
U.S. Supreme Court. In seeking to not infringe on religious rights, the Supreme Court did exactly the opposite this week. It conferred on businesses the ability to possess religious beliefs, further expanding past court rulings that corporations are people, too.
The issue was health insurance coverage: Could a family-owned business be forced to include coverage for certain contraceptives, ones that the family management construed as tantamount to abortion?
The court ruled 5-4 that the company did not have to provide that coverage, which was part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Requiring that coverage, when it went against the owners’ religious beliefs, would violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That raises the question of consistency on the part of plaintiff Hobby Lobby. Mother Jones magazine reported this spring that Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan “held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions.”
Business life is not nearly as simple as the court majority tried to make it seem. If companies can claim a religious exemption for contraceptive coverage, what other exemptions can they claim: That no divorced or cohabiting, unmarried couples will be employed by their business? That only males be employed? That vaccinations, blood transfusions or organ transplants will no longer be covered by health insurance? That family and parental leave will be honored only for parents in traditional marriages, not for children born out of wedlock?
Furthermore, the court implies the religious “beliefs” of a business trump an employee’s beliefs. The decision certainly takes away her right to health insurance that includes the disputed contraceptives.
If anything, the court’s “conservative” majority may have added to the impetus for universal, single-payer health care in the United States instead of our convoluted combination of employer- and government-paid coverage. ”
I am an old woman, so sometimes I must write bold and risky things too. First, let me say I’m pretty sure no one thinks abortion is a really nice thing. It is most often the result of tragic human mistakes. Humans make tragic mistakes. Telling men not to impregnate and women to be good girls is not going to make a bit of difference. Sex is a powerful, primitive drive. Seems to me, contraceptives are going to prevent more abortions than anything else that comes to mind.
The connotation of words and phrases is powerful too. “Pro-life” sounds really nice. So does “pro-choice.” “Health care” has a nice ring to it too. But these phrases are loaded with multiple meanings. I am trying to come up with a pretty phrase to describe the Court’s decision. Can’t do it. I just want to say,”What on earth were you thinking?” “Can of worms” comes to mind.