Emily Hibshman
The recent ruling of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby split my newsfeed in half. One one hand, I had statutes like the following:
"Breaking News Update: just in case you were worried that those pesky feminists were getting too rowdy, don't you worry. Five men have just decided that corporate religious ideologies overrule women's health and access to birth control. Everything's okay again. You're safe."
But then I also had this:
"You go hobby lobby! Trust God and follow his word and your business will succeed!"
The second worst part of that status is that it's from my cousin's wife.
The worst part is that she believes the ideologies of corporations override the health needs of individual women.
I think it's important to really unpack the issues surrounding this ruling. I personally believe in religious freedom along with accessibility to health care. Under no means do I, or anyone who was unhappy with this ruling, want to force anyone to do anything against their beliefs. However, Hobby Lobby believes they can force their beliefs on their employees.
Most people wouldn't tolerate an individual forcing their beliefs onto another, so why do we think it's okay for a corporation to do the same? Well, unless you believe that corporations are people.
As Thomas Jefferson believed, religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god. This means that religion can and should be practiced freely in private and should not enter the public sphere. Once someone owns a business, once they enter our so-called free market, they are no longer practicing in private. By wanting special exemptions from health care under the guise of religious freedom, they are officially forcing their beliefs onto other peoples and no longer practicing it in private. This is not what the first amendment stands for.
There's also a great hypocrisy in the ruling. According to the Huffington Post, Hobby Lobby will continue to cover male employee's health by providing coverage for Viagra and vasectomies. This kind bias is a clear case of misogyny. If they only wanted to provide services that encourage procreation, why cover vasectomies?
This is a ruling, coupled with buffer zone ruling, really lets us know where the Supreme Court stands when it comes to women.
The recent ruling of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby split my newsfeed in half. One one hand, I had statutes like the following:
"Breaking News Update: just in case you were worried that those pesky feminists were getting too rowdy, don't you worry. Five men have just decided that corporate religious ideologies overrule women's health and access to birth control. Everything's okay again. You're safe."
But then I also had this:
"You go hobby lobby! Trust God and follow his word and your business will succeed!"
The second worst part of that status is that it's from my cousin's wife.
The worst part is that she believes the ideologies of corporations override the health needs of individual women.
I think it's important to really unpack the issues surrounding this ruling. I personally believe in religious freedom along with accessibility to health care. Under no means do I, or anyone who was unhappy with this ruling, want to force anyone to do anything against their beliefs. However, Hobby Lobby believes they can force their beliefs on their employees.
Most people wouldn't tolerate an individual forcing their beliefs onto another, so why do we think it's okay for a corporation to do the same? Well, unless you believe that corporations are people.
As Thomas Jefferson believed, religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god. This means that religion can and should be practiced freely in private and should not enter the public sphere. Once someone owns a business, once they enter our so-called free market, they are no longer practicing in private. By wanting special exemptions from health care under the guise of religious freedom, they are officially forcing their beliefs onto other peoples and no longer practicing it in private. This is not what the first amendment stands for.
There's also a great hypocrisy in the ruling. According to the Huffington Post, Hobby Lobby will continue to cover male employee's health by providing coverage for Viagra and vasectomies. This kind bias is a clear case of misogyny. If they only wanted to provide services that encourage procreation, why cover vasectomies?
This is a ruling, coupled with buffer zone ruling, really lets us know where the Supreme Court stands when it comes to women.
No comments:
Post a Comment