Upholding Personal Choice by Condemning Personal Choice

J+M+J

As the whole Hobby Lobby contraception coverage controversy continues to boil over with a fury, I can't help but marvel at the inconsistencies presented by dissenters of the Supreme Court's decision. In most liberal circles, the general consensus is that this "catastrophic" outcome is no less than an assault on womanhood, the impoverished, and personal choice; oddly, their conviction that this whole ordeal will undoubtedly bring about near-apocalyptic consequences for the future of American women and the collective sexual freedom of all, sounds quite reminiscent of the dire predictions conservatives offered when the Affordable Care Act was initially enacted - warnings progressives dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense. Articles, like this one from Slate, continue to flood the internet, presenting a host of concerns over the initial decision and subsequent judicial developments from the High Court. Are these concerns misplaced? Or, even worse, is the liberal contingent's insistence that all organizations and corporations provide a veritable host of birth control - including those that act as abortifacients at least some of the time - actually inflicting more harm than good on those they hope to help, namely, women and the poor?

In a society where women are told they are invincible, unconquerable, tenacious, and talented, it's a bit ironic that they are also reminded with vigor that their success, whether professional or personal, is intrinsically linked to a little pill. Never, in all my years, have I ever heard a similar statement made regarding the success of men, yet women seem utterly dependent on medical intervention to curb a naturally functioning aspect of their bodies and, subsequently, make all their dreams come true. In other words: women need to turn off their biological "femininity" to be fully accomplished. Cyndi Lauper, music icon and women's rights advocate, in her open letter to the Daily Beast, even equated the Pill with "allowing [women] to...determine [their] own destiny."

"I am woman, hear me roar (that is, only if I'm on the appropriate birth control regime - otherwise, I'm a floundering mess)."

What does this message tell our young girls about the innate abilities of women? That we are only capable of greatness if we negate a primary aspect of our natural, biological make-up? That the possibility of bearing or rearing a child is the death knell for accomplishment? While it would be naive to suggest that having a child never presents new challenges to the life of any parent - whether man or woman - it would also be short-changing women to assert that children so hamper one's ambitions as to deem them near impossible.

And to add insult to sexist injury, this mentality is expounded upon in the equally popular sentiment which asserts that "having a uterus" naturally predisposes a female both to support contraception and (inherently) to sanction its mandated purchase. When lamenting the Supreme Court's emergency temporary injunction (afforded to companies and organizations maintaining a religious objection to the approval of third parties in providing birth control), Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West (in the aforementioned Slate piece), suggest that it was a specific physical characteristic that prompted the Supreme Court's dissenting justices to disapprove of the decision: a uterus. Undoubtedly, of course, it was the three dissenting justices' anatomy that caused them to disavow the decision (it couldn't possibly have been their liberal ideology, right?). Similarly, it's only natural that every one of the justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor at the initial decision was male - because men are absolutely opposed to birth control, correct? Yet, despite all the sexist rhetoric, Planned Parenthood provides statistics that the majority of men not only embrace birth control, but furthermore, believe it should be fully covered by insurance with absolutely no out-of-pocket costs. Hmm. I wonder why men would be interested in this, too? Could it be that men (albeit, in a different capacity) are also impacted by sexual activity, fertility, and possible procreation? When we relegate the opinions of individuals, particularly women, to stereotypical thought, are we really championing personal choice, conscientious discernment, and individualism? Or are we instead conditioning young girls and women to adopt only those beliefs popular society thinks are appropriate for females to hold?

Another group "egregiously" assaulted by the Court's decision is, of course, the poor. Opponents of the decision argue that the undue burden placed on poverty-stricken employees by not having an exhaustive list of birth control universally covered by employers would simply be too much to bear. Let us consider for the moment the real source of medicine's astronomical prices; that is, our society's unbelievable dependence upon this third party payment system: a system which, ironically, was thrust upon us through government regulation decades ago and has created a systemic problem, in which people no longer weigh the "value" of a given drug, procedure, or visit with their own monetary investment, because insurance is "paying the bill." If people had to actually draw their own cash out of their pockets to make health care purchases, they would most certainly think more critically about how their money is spent on health and, subsequently, medical providers would be forced to lower their prices, since no one would be willing to pay the bills that insurance currently covers. It's common sense. Unfortunately, however, we would rather have the satisfaction of having "someone else" foot the bill for our antibiotics, routine check-ups, or birth control than to implement change that would really reduce the cost of medical care. Thus, we see that people aren't complaining about the system...instead they are complaining about another person's unwillingness to compromise his deeply seated convictions to subsidize things he finds morally reprehensible.

So, instead of advocating for real, tangible change in altering the course of medicine in our country to benefit us all (but particularly, the poor), liberal organizations, such as The National Organization for Women, are instead channeling their energies in attacking...the Little Sisters of the Poor?? Yes, liberal advocates for impoverished women are black-labeling groups of nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the poverty-stricken, the elderly, and the dying. It makes perfect sense: attempt to shut down, thwart, or cripple organizations and people seeking to improve the lives of those around them, whether those individuals be religious sisters living in poverty themselves to better serve others, or the leaders of companies like Hobby Lobby, which pays its employees nearly double the national minimum and provides flexible hours, or Eden Foods, a company committed to healthy living and organic, sustainable farming (which, when you consider the birth control issue from a "health" perspective, is it any surprise that a company dedicated to organic living would reject paying for class one carcinogens?). What the liberal mentality seems to be forgetting here is that many of these organizations would rather, however reluctantly, cease to operate than reject their strongly held ethical positions. So, in their zeal to have the birth control of all women paid for by people other than then the women themselves (and their spouses, partners, etc.), liberal advocates just might be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by literally forcing these organizations to cease the great services they provide in order to secure their convictions.

It is also important to remember amid all the emotionally-charged rhetoric, that the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) and similar corporate heads cannot making anyone "forego" anything. For one thing, employees enter into voluntary employment contracts with their employer and are free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their current employment (we are not discussing involuntary servitude here). Secondly, people can buy practically anything they want for themselves. Understandably, there will always exist certain goods that people may want (or even things they might need, or feel they need) which are also cost prohibitive, but unfortunately, that's life. If one cannot afford something he feels is necessary, life adjustments must be made. It seems undeniable that comfortable shelter, reliable transportation, and a whole host of other things are considered vital in American culture - and these are even good, wonderful, beneficial things to promote well-being - but even so, they aren't guaranteed to any of us. As adults, we all need to understand that we have choices to make about nearly every aspect of life: financial decisions, personal decisions, career decisions, etc. and we must face the challenges and realities of life, even when it is unpleasant or difficult. Sometimes, we have to trudge along through inconveniences or even outright hardships, but that's human existence. It isn't our employer's responsibility to safeguard us from every decision we personally make, but it is our responsibility to take ownership of our personal liberty and the consequences of our decisions, great and small.

Finally, the irony of "championing personal choice" by forcibly mandating others to act against, well, against their "personal choice," is comical to epic degrees (but somehow the hilarity seems to be lost on many). Since this is not an issue of outlawing birth control, women will still have other options for obtaining it (like, um, paying for it on their own, perhaps?), but employers will completely forfeit their own personal choice by surrendering their right to object to financing those things they find morally reprehensible. It seems, however, that certain choices just aren't as important as others. For example, it would appear, given popular consensus on the matter, that the physical needs, desires, or choices of one individual are inherently more valuable than the spiritual and ethical considerations of another. Yet, when we think beyond our personal inclinations, why should one's desire (i.e. "choice") to engage in an active sex life usurp another individual's commitment to oppose the ending of a child's life (however developmentally small that human being may be)? Because, despite what the media tells you, this is the crux of the matter: it's not a war on women, it's not mere religiosity, but rather, it's a question of ethics.

The ironies, the inconsistencies, and the improbabilities of the popular arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision are enough to make one's head spin, but one can only hope that after greater reflection we can all recognize the hypocrisy of forcing others to act against their carefully formulated convictions to uphold some twisted (and extremely limited) view of "personal choice." And with all that stands to be lost by compelling employers to act against their organization's values, one has to wonder: who really has it out for the American people?


M.K.

Mississippi's Proposition 26- Some Thoughts

J+M+J

Proposition 26, a ballot initiative in the State of Mississippi that would have amended that State’s Constitution to define the term “person,” was defeated on Tuesday night, and it wasn’t nearly as close as expected. Here is the text of the proposal:

"Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word 'person' or 'persons', as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

I was very surprised to read analysis today, (like this on CNN) indicating that women “weren’t even sure how far-reaching [the amendment] would be because the language was so ambiguous.” Ambiguous?

We (you, me, Americans in general) have lost the ability to be honest with ourselves. There is nothing ambiguous about the proposed amendment. It is something like a first principle: a thing that is either true or it is not true; something with which you can either agree or disagree. There’s nothing ambiguous about first principles. The State Constitution either should, or should not, define the term “person” to include human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or their functional equivalent.

We are dishonest because it is easier to let ourselves believe that the language is ambiguous, rather than face the fact that we know the truth, and we don’t like it - perhaps because we have violated the principle.

I can understand a person voting no because they do not think that a fertilized egg is a human being; I certainly don’t agree with it, but I understand it. If they really, truly think that, then they are being logical. But I think that a great majority of those that voted no on the proposal think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization. They lied to themselves.

No, the proposed amendment was not ambiguous; not even the repercussions of the proposal are ambiguous. We can agree, for example, that an adult woman is a person. There is no ambiguity contained in that sentence (she either is or isn’t). Neither is there any ambiguity in the repercussions of that statement: violating (that is, killing, hurting, stealing from) a grown woman is wrong, and society recognizes that by punishing someone who does it. So, if a fertilized egg is a person? The same repercussions follow: that hurting or killing a fertilized egg is wrong and should not be allowed! Of course, there are particulars to every case; if a person is being attacked and defends himself, society recognizes the subjective specifics of the situation, and does not punish the self-defender. (Would a woman who experiences a miscarriage be put on trial? Really?)

I think voters are hiding behind feigned “ambiguity,” simply because they don’t want to address the real question that an honest vote raises: Do my actions reflect my beliefs? We all put blinders on to our wrongdoings; we find ways to trivialize them, justify them… or we ignore them altogether. Modern science - and those who package it and provide it to us - is great at allowing us to focus on exactly what we want to focus on, and to ignore everything else. To be clear: for a woman taking the pill, there is a chance during each cycle that a fertilized egg will be flushed from her body - prevented from implanting by the direct working of the pill she takes to suppress ovulation every day. But she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t feel it. There’s only the possibility of it - she might not even know about it (except for the publicity this amendment has given to this very likely possibility). It’s so much easier to ignore.

So let’s be honest:

Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person? In your heart of hearts… when no one is looking… what percentage of people can really, honestly say “no” to themselves?

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and you knew that taking a pill could (and over the course of taking the pill for ten years, almost certainly will, more than once) force that person to be flushed from its temporary home, how can you go on taking that pill?

As many as 70% of women of child-bearing age use the pill. I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself: do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with a soul imbued by God? Do you understand that it is a medical fact that the pill acts by preventing fertilized eggs (humans with souls, unless you really think otherwise) from implanting in the uterus and forces them to be flushed out? Can you really go on doing this to your babies?

We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong; more of us need to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what society tolerates. What we must do is pray: pray and do what we know in our hearts to be right, and help our friends and family to do the same. If enough of us do that, maybe then we can change the world. Change will not come from the top down; no politician cares enough to change the world. It has to start with us.