Hobby Lobby ruling dangerous

Published Jul 9, 2014 at 5:50 am (Updated Jul 9, 2014 at 12:57 pm)

Just when the United States was taking one step forward as more and more states are lifting bans on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has taken us two steps backwards with its terrifying ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which says that the crafting-giant and other closely held corporations can limit birth-control methods that their employee health insurance policies cover.

The ruling is a dangerous one for many reasons, first and foremost that it opens the door for similar cases. Similar cases, which, for the sake of consistency, would need to be ruled in the same manor. It should not be up to one’s boss which medical procedures and prescriptions are available to them. Suppose that you need an organ transplant, but work for a company with owners whose religions are against organ donation – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists or members of the Shinto faith. Based on this ruling, you may just be out of luck.

Second, based on the way that the judges voted, it is obvious that extreme right-winged male republicans are still operating under the school of thought that religious beliefs are indeed fact, and that science is ... second to what Christians, Muslims, Protestants, et cetera, interpret as God’s word. They also seem to be grasping at straws to overturn any part of the Affordable Health Care Act that they can.

Third, while we applaud Hobby Lobby offering health benefits to its employees, we feel that companies have no business dictating that its employees practice a certain set of religious guidelines inside or outside of the workplace. Not providing certain methods of birth control to the women who may need it is just flat out wrong.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not allow people to be discriminated against in the workplace based on race, age, gender, sex or religion – yet, we are now allowing religion to impact what benefits will be offered.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the ruling “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies.” He’s absolutely right.

comments powered by Disqus