The law has taken a while to go into effect, with the biggest changes happening earlier this year and with anything, there was a lot of controversy. The most recent (and what the SCOTUS ruling focused on) was that employers had to provide birth control for their employees, which *gasp*, is such a completely absurd idea. (I hope you all are sensing my sarcasm here.)
The case was brought forth by a craft store chain by the name of Hobby Lobby, which is about as bad of a store that its cheesy name hints (it was also brought forth with another company by the name of Conestoga Wood Specialties, but they didn't play as big of role as the former, or at least that's how it seems). But let's stay on topic here. Hobby Lobby was getting their paint brushes in a twist because their deeply held religious conviction just couldn't allow them to provide their employees with emergency contraception.
There are a few points I'd like to bring up here, so I'll try to put this in a formatted and bold form to allow easy following for those of you tuning in at home.
I thoroughly wish I could find stats on the percent of Hobby Lobby employees who are Christian and the percent of employees who hold the same religious conviction against the morning after pill and IUDs as the corporation (as even if all their employees are Christian which is practically impossible, there's no way to assume that they also hold the same religious feelings as them as well).
There are multiple sightings in our Constitution on religious freedom and yes, the Hobby Lobby corporation has the right to oppose IUDs and such, but they don't have the right to impress their own religious beliefs on their employees. By not having to provide these things under their ideals, their religious freedom is taking precedent over their 21,000 employee's religious freedom.
My point being, you can't refuse to provide something like this to your employees on the grounds of religious freedom unless 100% of your employees hold the exact same beliefs as you.
When was my employer given this much say in what I do with my body?
I highly doubt when these employees signed on to work for Hobby Lobby they knew they were also giving their employer a say in their reproductive health. I don't know when the men in suits will realize that they don't have a say in women's reproductive choices.
Who is to say IUDs and the morning after pill are considered abortions?
This is a long talked about argument. From my understanding Hobby Lobby isn't 100% against contraception. They'll provide insurance that covers birth control pills and condoms because these things prevent sperm from reaching the egg or egg reaching the sperm, however you want to put this. *Cue horrible flashbacks to 6th grade sex ed.*
But the problem is that the morning after pill and in *some* cases with IUDs, they keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, which in Hobby Lobby's terms is considered a borderline abortion or at least that's how I'll put it for a lack of I don't know the real scientific term they use. Don't mind that a majority of doctors agree that a pregnancy is considered when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, therefore removing this life would be considered an abortion. Hobby Lobby just happens to think that if anything happens to a fertilized egg it is considered an abortion, whether it actually attaches to the uterus or not and becomes a real pregnancy.
Also might I add that generally IUDs work JUST LIKE CONDOMS. They simply keep sperm from reaching the egg. The only time that they keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus is if they're inserted when a woman already has a fertilized egg in her uterus and is used as emergency contraception. And we don't even know that either. It *might* do that, we just don't know. If you want to get more on this 'are IUDs causing abortions or not' argument check out this fascinating article here.
In all honesty, this just all sounds like Hobby Lobby should be taking an eighth grade science class, not making lawsuits.
When you own a business, you do things for your employees because in almost all cases there are a lot more people working for you than you or the group of 'yous' who are running the place. It's common business practice. DON'T PISS OFF YOUR EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY KINDA RUN THE PLACE. You do things with the thoughts of your employees in mind and Hobby Lobby has yet to find this out. It's also irritating as with this movement they're shoving the I hate these things that I think cause abortions, but really don't according to a large percentage of the medical field message down their worker's throats.
Also our country is repeatedly going in the direction where big huge, non person, corporations are considered people. And not only that, but they're given precedent over REAL LIVING BREATHING PERSONS. Absurd, really.
How did we get in a mess where five guys with penises made this huge groundbreaking decision over something that doesn't even work with their male anatomy?
For those unfamiliar with our Supreme Court make-up, we have nine justices. We have six men and three women, a ratio that isn't exactly well representative of our American population to begin with.
The decision was 5-4 (five in favor of Hobby Lobby, four in favor of women everywhere), not to mention all three women were against Hobby Lobby's "right" to not provide IUDs to their employees. THAT MEANS FIVE PENISES JUST TOLD ME MY EMPLOYER CAN REFUSE TO GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT SOME CONSIDER VITAL TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE AND THEIR WELL BEING (PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, IN TERMS OF A SUCCESSFUL CAREER, ETC.).
Periods are painful and these "things" that you oppose often help.
IUDs are often used to treat painful periods. They're like, imagine this, prescribed by a doctor who I can almost guarantee spent more time training and in school for his job than you did.
Also on a side note, where will these "religious exemptions" end. Theoretically, anything a doctor can prescribe, your employer could be against. What about religions who have convictions against organ donations and blood transfusions? Will these people's beliefs be able to get them out of providing their employees coverage for these things? I can almost guarantee that cases like this will arise, and the court can't just pick and choose which religions can have an exemption. If they do, that will open an entirely new can of worms with the court favoring one religion over the other.
So here comes the fun part. Does this get you just as riled up as I am (bold and caps lock for the win)? Or do you have a completely different outlook (really don't be afraid I'm a lot more friendly than these seemingly yelling sentences imply)?
Regardless, have a fabulous day.