Hobby Lobby Decision–Viewpoint from a millennial

help times; font-size: 16px;”>EditorialThis week, with the kind permission of the editors, I have turned over my column to my daughter, Abigail Welborn.  Abbey is a 4th year student at the University of Virginia, playing volleyball for the UVA Cavaliers, majoring in political theory and now making her debut as a political commentator.  No dad could be more proud.  Here is her spin on one of the week’s events.

By Abigail Welborn

Feminists and Liberals of all sexual orientation are foaming at the mouth over this week’s Supreme Court decision in the so-called Hobby Lobby case.  Average freedom.of.religionAmericans think the decision was pretty reasonable – expected it – which just infuriates the left even more.  The mainstream media, which has largely abandoned any pretense of even pretending to be objective, they just parrot the “talking points”.  This leaves little room for serious analysis of the decision.

Leftists can’t figure out why the Justices and every other American can’t see how hateful, mean-spirited, discriminatory, bigoted and apartheid-like refusing to pay for someone else’s birth control is.  It flummoxes them and agitates them to the point where they’ve given us some pretty outrageous sound bites.

Courtesy of N.OW.’s president, Terry O’Neill: “apartheid in South Africa was justified on religious grounds.  The Southern Baptist convention justified slavery and later Jim Crow and segregation on religious grounds…  The Supreme Court is simply wrong to honor gender bigotry…  It’s bigotry to keep women away from basic healthcare.”

Wow!  In the world which these Liberals inhabit, a court decision stipulating that someone is not obligated to pay for the consequences of someone else’s sexual hijinks is discriminatory.  Making someone pay for their own abortification procedures is equivalent to sweeping women’s rights back to the dark ages of the late 19th century.  It’s all outrageous rhetoric, of course, but it’s also deeply flawed logic.

Hobby Lobby (the employer) will still provide its employees a health insurance plan with several forms of birth control.  In fact, of the 20 HHS-mandated birth control methods, which were stipulated in Obamacare, Hobby Lobby will still offer 16.  To claim anyone is being denied basic birth control is just factually wrong

The key issue in this case was whether a closely-held company, owned by deeply religious people who object to abortion on well documented religious beliefs, war.on.women.2should be forced to pay for medications which cause a woman’s body to self-abort a fetus (the medication known as an abortifacient).   To force someone to act against their most deeply rooted religious beliefs is immoral, impractical and most certainly unconstitutional, and the Justices got it right.

The most hyperbolic of the Left’s criticisms and fears is that this decision allows a slippery slope down which all forms of healthcare could be denied.  Such a fear represents a terrible misreading of several hundred years of court decisions which shape our understanding and implementation of the first amendment to the Constitution.  It also belies a dangerous misunderstanding of what representative democracy should look like.

Our constitution provides us with a form of government in which the majority’s will can be implemented while at the same time protecting the rights of the minority.  If there were no restrictions on what the majority could decide, then any majority of people at any given time could take advantage of a small minority.  The Framers’ genius was to provide a series of amendments (the first 10 known as the Bill of Rights) which stipulated which rights were inviolate. 

The first amendment states in elegant simplicity, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  This is straightforward, simple and tremendously valuable to each and every American.  We are each free to practice our religion, but none of us can impose our religion on others.  Catholics can be Catholic, Protestants Protestant, Mormans Morman, and atheists can play golf on Sunday mornings.

The Hobby Lobby decision simply recognized this.  If a woman wants to use birth control which acts as an abortion pill, she can do it.  Hobby Lobby, on the other hand, is not obligated to pay for it.  This doesn’t mean that Hobby Lobby is preventing the woman from obtaining the pills.  No right has been stripped from anyone.  In fact, one of the most important rights for every American has been affirmed.

The last and most troubling aspect of this decision is the fact that it was a 5-4 decision.  Four Liberal justices believe that an American can be forced to violate their religious beliefs to pay for another person’s abortion. As outrageous as the belief is, it’s scarier to think what one more Liberal justice would mean.  Tip the Supreme Court’s scales just one more person to the left, and basic American freedoms could be eliminated.  Now that’s worthy of some hyperbole!

The great irony in all this is that the Hobby Lobby decision did more to protect and affirm civil rights than most Liberal activists can lay claim to in a lifetime.  When Liberals finally emerge from their fevered indignation, they’ll realize just how lucky they are.

Contact  the author:  Abigail C. Welborn can be reached at [email protected] and her work can be seen at www.abigailwelborn.wordpress.com  She’s only 5’4” tall, but she’s feisty and dedicated to helping people better understand the benefits of conservatism.

_____________________________________________________

Get free Citizensjournal.us BULLETINS. Please patronize our advertisers to keep us publishing and/or DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Citizen Reporter

Congratulations Abigail (and Greg)- great writing and analytical ability seems to run in the family.

But think a little further- If the govt, can’t require us to purchase abortion pills for people, then why should it be able to force us to purchase health care, welfare, housing or anything else for them? Why, for that matter, should they be permitted to force us to purchase anything for ourselves, too, for that matter?