Split Decision: Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision

Back to Article
Back to Article

Split Decision: Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision

Jonathan H. Ellyson and Heather Kemp

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






CON: Heather Kemp

Religious conservatives have once again thrown women’s rights to the wolves and used the cloak of the legal system to do it.

Recently, in a 5-to-4 decision The Supreme Court ruled that it is not Hobby Lobby’s responsibility to provide contraceptives for their employees.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities claimed that having to allow their employees access to contraceptives went against their religious freedoms, and that they did not want to provide intrauterine devices, emergency contraceptives and other forms of birth control because they consider them synonymous with abortion.

In no logical way do things like copper IUDs or Plan B pills equate to an abortion.

A baby’s heart does not start beating until 22 days after conception, according to the Mayo Clinic.

If you want to get technical, that means babies aren’t alive for a whole 22 days, and all the methods listed would avoid a possible pregnancy before life begins.

Besides, it is none of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties or the guy living down the street’s business if a woman wants to get an abortion or not.

Back in 1973 The Supreme Court decided that the choice to have an abortion was a private matter for women living in America.

Yes, the right to religious expression is an important one that needs to be protected, but the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case crosses the line.

No one should have to live in a world where someone else’s religious beliefs infringe on their own lifestyle.

Hobby Lobby winning this case will let loose a can of worms that slither into the workplace and let employers discriminate in the future justifying it with religious reasoning.

PRO: Jonathan H. Ellyson

There are certain times it is okay for the government to stick its hands in the market, like the Environmental Protection Agency incentivizing certain corporations to reduce toxic emissions that are bad for the planet. The Hobby Lobby contraceptive debate is not one of those times.

The problem with the issue is that it has been clouded by so many professionals using verbose language and not representing the facts honestly.

The basics are this: The Affordable Care Act requires an employer to cover a set of “essential health benefits” which are 10 categories including medically authorized contraception. Hobby Lobby is a company providing healthcare to its employees.

Much like Chick-fil-A and Nabisco, Hobby Lobby has public socio-political ideas. Specifically relevant to this case is that they frown on abortions and believe life starts at conception.

Regardless of your stance on the issues, the company itself shouldn’t have to have any hand in funding what to them would be classified as abortion. Hobby Lobby wasn’t even against contraception in general despite what Nancy Pelosi said in a statement about “what forms of contraception are legal.”

That’s actually a beautiful representation of how this whole issue has been irresponsibly misrepresented.

So the court ruled that a company wouldn’t have to provide funding for abortifacients for its employees. Really the only thing this sets a precedent for is future court cases upholding beliefs and principles, which have nothing to do with banning contraception.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email