logo
g Text Version
Beauty & Self
Books & Music
Career
Computers
Education
Family
Food & Wine
Health & Fitness
Hobbies & Crafts
Home & Garden
Money
News & Politics
Relationships
Religion & Spirituality
Sports
Travel & Culture
TV & Movies

dailyclick
Bored? Games!
Nutrition
Postcards
Take a Quiz
Rate My Photo

new
European Travel
Action Movies
Bible Basics
Houseplants
Romance Movies
Creativity
Family Travel


dailyclick
All times in EST

Full Schedule
g
g Human Rights Site

BellaOnline's Human Rights Editor

g

Hobby Lobby Ruling


On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. This allowed Hobby Lobby and other for-profit employers to refrain from providing birth control coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. The reasoning behind this ruling was that it violated the religious freedoms of Hobby Lobby to have to cover contraception for their employees.

There were four dissenting parties in this ruling: Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Three of the four are women. Justice Ginsburg, as part of her powerful dissent, made the observation that if this particular “religious freedom” should be protected, “…how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?” Blood transfusions and vaccinations are concerns for other religious groups. Should they also not be covered?

It is interesting that the SCOTUS chose to honor the religious freedoms of a secular business over the reproductive health of women. It’s scary that the SCOTUS chose to protect a business over people with health concerns in general. Shouldn't the rights of people trump the rights of businesses? Furthermore, Hobby Lobby itself isn’t a religion or a church. It’s a for-profit business. Why should it get special privileges just because the owners are religious? They say that their religious rights are being violated. Well, why should their religious beliefs be forced upon their employees? That doesn’t seem very fair.

Something that businesses like Hobby Lobby should realize is the birth control is used for various purposes; not just recreational sex. While it is a great tool to be used in family planning, it is also used for various health issues, and it’s very important, for the sake of women’s health, that they have access to birth control. Not all birth control is inexpensive. Some, like IUDs, can cost upwards of $1000. Most people can’t just pay that kind of money out-of-pocket.

Hobby Lobby may not realize it, but the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t just affect their religious rights. It can affect entire families. If a woman doesn’t have access to birth control, her options--and the options of the family--suddenly change. They may have to pay out-of-pocket for birth control, which affects family finances. They may choose to go without birth control, which may end up in a surprise pregnancy, or which may worsen her illness, if she was on birth control to regulate an illness.

This ruling is concerning and it makes one wonder what could happen in the future in the name of religious freedom. But if we continually stand up for our human rights, we can make ourselves heard and change can happen.
Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Twitter Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Facebook Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to MySpace Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Del.icio.us Digg Hobby+Lobby+Ruling Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Yahoo My Web Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Google Bookmarks Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Stumbleupon Add Hobby+Lobby+Ruling to Reddit




RSS | Related Articles | Editor's Picks Articles | Top Ten Articles | Previous Features | Site Map


For FREE email updates, subscribe to the Human Rights Newsletter


Past Issues


print
Printer Friendly
bookmark
Bookmark
tell friend
Tell a Friend
forum
Forum
email
Email Editor


Content copyright © 2014 by Andria Bobo. All rights reserved.
This content was written by Andria Bobo. If you wish to use this content in any manner, you need written permission. Contact Andria Bobo for details.

g


g features
Ableist Language

Emma Watson Defends Feminism

It's a Girl Review

Archives | Site Map

forum
Forum
email
Contact

Past Issues
memberscenter


vote
Poetry
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than Monthly



BellaOnline on Facebook
g


| About BellaOnline | Privacy Policy | Advertising | Become an Editor |
Website copyright © 2014 Minerva WebWorks LLC. All rights reserved.


BellaOnline Editor