Woodruff wrote:Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.
Sorry that I'm late to the party but I really don't want to go through 18 pages of potential nonsense to see if my point was already covered. The Supreme Court decision had nothing whatsoever to do with "contraceptives" no matter how much the mainstream media wants to advertise it as such. The issue was over a small number of methods that the company declared were "abortifacients" (that which induces an abortion) and opposed to contraceptives (that which prevents conception). Clearly an abortifacient is a failed contraceptive because it assumes at its face value that the conception has already taken place.
Now there is a secondary question of whether a method that simply prevent implantation a contraceptive or an abortifacient.
And there is a tertiary question of whether the morning after pill prevents implantation.
Now let's go backwards. As to question 3, I see from WebMD: "It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining." So the answer is "yes it may."
What about the second question. Now that is a harder moral question. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, the deliberate attempt to prevent implantation (as opposed to implantation failing naturally) would be morally equivalent to an abortifacient (as opposed to a miscarriage happening naturally). In such conditions, I can see that the supplying of material to provide the prevention of implantation would be the equivalent of providing material to the support of a deliberate abortion which in turn would be cooperation in a grave sin in the eyes of the person.
So yes, I can see how someone can be absolutely serious in not desiring to participate in what they may believe is a grave sin in terms of these specific forms that Hobby Lobby objected to.
Note that doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the specific argument; merely that I can see how one can make such a case.
Contraception, should, by its name, result in no unwanted conceptions. The Hobby Lobby had no problems with this and was perfectly willing to support a number of methods that actually prevented conception. Once fertilization took place, they did have an objection. The objection was based on religious grounds.
Basically, the SCOTUS has stated that a group of people don't leave their religious beliefs at the door merely because they filed a legal document to limit their financial liability (a corporation). The law could have been written to exclude such groups, but it was not.
Personally, I don't think corporations should be involved in health insurance at all. You don't get your auto insurance from your employer and your employer and your health choices should follow the same design. It is only because this is a stupid system that the question even comes up in the first place.