Rethinking the Hobby Lobby Ruling …Is It Really So Bad?

But in those states where the death penalty is invoked, most of us oppose methods that cause prolonged pain and suffering by the criminal.  The Eighth Amendment states emphatically that “cruel and unusual punishment” is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. 

Having established the above as a premise, I move on to a slightly different topic—the recent Hobby Lobby ruling.  Connection?  Adhering to one’s principles, convictions, and faith.  I empathize with those people who hold fast to their strongly held positions of conscience even if I don’t agree with them.  They should have the right to adhere to their principles and to promote them.  Remember Voltaire?  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (and act on it). 

Personally, I have problems with the issue of abortion but, remembering what it was like pre-Roe, I would not support any roadblocks to a woman’s right to choose. 

On the other hand, if there were ready access to contraception, “unwanted” pregnancies would be substantially reduced, which would in turn lead to a dramatic reduction to the need for abortion. (By the way, why don’t these fervid anti-abortionists (some of whom are willing to murder in order to prevent baby-killing—ironic?!) adopt some of those children whose mothers gave birth but are ill-prepared to care for their infants?) 

To the immediate point, post-Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling, the consequences are narrow and limited to workers of closely held companies (five or less family members or close friends in partnership) and pertain only to the four types of contraception which will be off-limits out of the many forms currently available. 

And this is where conscience and principles come in.  There are those like the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga companies who feel fervently that certain methods inflict pain and suffering on the unborn child. 

Who are any of us to say that this is not true, that there is not a smidgen of truth to their argument?  Many are in agreement that life begins at conception.  Others counter this thinking by claiming that what scientists call viability should be considered the point when life really commences. 

The question remains:  When and how are pain and suffering inflicted?  And if certain eligible employers (who are certain in their beliefs) don’t want to be connected with the practice, wouldn’t it be immoral for them to look the other way? 

The fact of the matter is that some contraception methods can cause horrendous consequences for the mother and/or baby.  IUDs, for example, can cause hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancies that can rupture and kill the mother and baby, infection, premature birth, miscarriage, and deformities.  Some IUDs can even implant themselves in the uterus, making it virtually impossible for future pregnancies. 

The Supreme Court, so consistent in its frequent, flagrant 5-4 ultra-conservative rulings, seems to be at least cognizant of this conundrum.  Therefore, the Court has left it up to the government (how ironic since they usually rule on the side of small government) to provide the contraception of choice to the women who would otherwise be denied access because of the ruling. 

I am trying to be open-minded, but maybe I am naïve.  Maybe I am foolish.  Maybe I prefer seeing life as it should be.  Maybe I am giving the benefit of the doubt for even the most recalcitrant Justices who may be attempting, in their own way, to mitigate negative consequences for women employees of those specifically designated companies. 

Some people are already claiming that this ruling will inevitably lead to worse consequences, that once this precedent has been set, Jericho’s walls will come crashing down.   There are those who are concerned that this ruling could cause those owners who are against blood transfusions, for instance, or all medical practices to file similar lawsuits.  Legal minds, however, are already refuting such allegations on the basis of the narrowness of this ruling. 

The sky has not fallen and there has been and will be no slippery slope. 

Far too many are outraged about the children who are crossing our borders by the thousands.  These young people are fleeing rape and brutality for a better, safer life but are confronted by those who think these young people (often infants) should be heartlessly sent back to their mother country.  Why is it acceptable to ignore those living children but only show concern for the unborn? 

This reminds me of the ship of Jews and other persecuted peoples during World War II who were turned away to go to their almost certain deaths after landing at our door—the shore that Emma Lazarus claimed would welcome the tempest-tost, wretched refuse, yearning to breathe free.  But I digress … 

In the end, women have the right to contraceptive access.  Five men decided (based on conservative values) what is good for women as if females were chattel.  The question is, of course, just how far might future decisions go?  Will we be like China and limit by law the number of babies we can have?  Or whether we can have them at all?  Or decide which women are entitled to bear children on the basis of the mother’s quality of life?  Or who are entitled to access to contraception in the first place and what kind it should be? 

So what about this ruling?  I take solace in the belief that any such rulings can and have been overturned by future Supreme Courts (consider Plessy vs Ferguson) or by our elected Congress—particularly when earlier rulings are seen to be ill-conceived. 

Interesting dichotomies, but definitely food for thought. 

Just sayin’.

(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, A Quick-and-Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts.  She also writes for CityWatch.)

-cw

CityWatch

Vol 12 Issue 54

Pub: Jul 4, 2014