Not Providing Abortifacients Is Un-Christian Or Something

14 Jul, 2014 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

If a Conservative blogger wants to find a crazy story for a Monday morning, there are a few great places to go. The Democratic Underground. The Daily Kos. And, better, yet, the NY Times, the self proclaimed “Paper Of Record”. Here’s Kathryn Pogin on the opinion pages

Discrimination is Un-Christian, Too

Much to the chagrin of women’s rights advocates, Hobby Lobby has won its legal battle – but claims of “victory” for religious freedom must be emended. Make no mistake: This is no victory for the freedom to exercise Christian principles. Though employers like Hobby Lobby are now free to deny women access to contraceptives through their employer-subsidized health plans on the basis of religious objection, they will be violating their own purported Christian principles if they do. While Christians are not compelled by their faith to engage in religious practices that impose upon the freedoms of others, they are compelled – by their belief that all persons, men and women, are created in the image of God – to oppose discrimination.

Whoa! Those are some serious mental gyrations to come to the conclusion that not offering abortifacients is discrimination. And, like most Liberals, she has completely misinterpreted both Hobby Lobby’s stance and the Supreme Court verdict. This is not about contraception, but abortifacients. Fortunately, Kathryn goes on to tell us that, yes, this is about abortifacients

Some corporations that have objected to the contraceptive requirements of the Affordable Care Act, like Hobby Lobby, claim that they do not wish to discriminate against women by denying them access to contraceptives generally, and that their opposition is merely to abortion. However, their understanding of which medications act as abortifacients rests on an outdated understanding of medical science and is at odds with the facts of the matter. Use of these contraceptive methods is not tantamount to abortion, and moreover, providing women with access to safe, reliable contraceptives for free drastically reduces the actual abortion rate.

First, Hobby Lobby and others haven’t said one word about “discrimination”. Second, what exactly is the Plan B pill other than an abortifacient? Third, she starts mixing contraceptives and abortifacients up again at the end.

The more pressing question religious corporations should ask themselves is whether denying women comprehensive health care while providing it to men, and so failing to respect women’s inherent dignity and equality, is consistent with their religious values. Since the Supreme Court focused on the practical effects at stake (that is, whether women would be able to obtain coverage elsewhere, and thus by a less restrictive means) rather than on the expressive function of the law, Hobby Lobby is now free to discriminate in its provision of health care. But the question remains, why would it want to?

Huh? Where are corporations offering services to men that they do not offer to women? In fact, women typically have much higher use benefits than men, though men pay for the same services. Men typically have no need for gynecological or maternity care. Nor mammograms. Nor others. Yet, we pay it within our premiums. Much of the opinion piece is regarding the typical Liberal trope that Someone Else should be responsible for paying for contraception/abortifacients. This is the result of several weeks of navel gazing in order to come up with a rationale to assault the SCOTUS decision, Hobby Lobby, and other organizations with religious leanings.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.