Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: How dissenters misunderstand “person” & “right”

https://i1.wp.com/media.cagle.com/141/2012/03/27/108892_600.jpg
Cagle.com

In what’s sure to be a quoted precedence for many cases to come, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Heath and Human Service regulations forcing corporations to offer contraception violates the  1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A lot of dissenters claim the ruling is a lost for women’s rights when the real issue is about about protecting rights.

Allowing companies to conduct business based on their religious beliefs doesn’t make this a women’s rights issue. What needs to change is the healthcare system. Private companies are not and should not be responsible for the falsies that exist in government regulations. Government involvement in healthcare causes it’s high cost and inefficiency. Solve that problem and you allow better access to proper healthcare making whether or not a company chooses to cover those costs irrelevant.

Many people picket for freedoms and enjoy its rewards but expect to pick and choose which are worth defending. When one freedom is in jeopardy, all are equally threatened. If you want government covered healthcare, you have to allow government to choose for you (i.e. in a public program you loose the right to choose anything).

Allowing each person and company to choose what’s right for them (a private run program) allows everyone access to what’s important to them with the freedom to choose, protecting  freedoms. In a free society government should only protect your freedoms, not provide the services by choosing which ones to promote.

The major misunderstanding is with the definition of “person” as defined legally.

The Official Laci Green Facebook Page

The following is an excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling:

It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations with in RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.

The word RIGHT, i.e. “women’s rights” “human rights” or any other freedom, means right to choose what’s best for yourself. If you don’t like what your company provides, you have the choice to choose another employer. Saying corporations (which are private collections of people) must provide certain healthcare services also leaves them open to determine when and what kind of services you should experience. If government can choose for private companies, then they will be able to choose for you, relinquishing your right to have or not have any healthcare service anywhere, ever.

A great point from The Matt Walsh Blog:

These claims are unabashedly dishonest because they fail to take into account two important points: A) Hobby Lobby covers birth control. I say again: Hobby Lobby covers birth control. B) Whether any employer covers birth control or not, none are trying to stop women from accessing it. The issue here is whether a private company should be forced to pay for birth control, not whether it should be allowed to sneak into your house at night and check to make sure you don’t have a bottle of Yaz in your medicine cabinet.
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/30/want-birth-control-go-buy/#d3pc5op8YU5JEg3V.99
Advertisements

Comment or leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s