The Question of Hobby Lobby and the First Amendment

A lot of discussion was generated on Facebook after I posted a story about Hobby Lobby (http://madworldnews.com/read-else-hobby-lobby-forces-employees/). Hobby Lobby evidently pays a beginning wage that is 93% higher than the federally mandated minimum wage. They also pay a higher wage to part time employees.  They are, of course, embroiled in a debate over whether or not they have to provide certain kinds of birth control (that they consider abortifacients) as a part of their health insurance coverage. 

I want to make clear up front that I don’t actually agree with Hobby Lobby’s stance on the birth control methods (at least as far as I am able to determine). But that isn’t the issue.  For me the issue is whether or not a company has first amendment rights. One argument is that they should abide by the laws that the majority has decided on. However, the point of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of the minority.[1]  I have also been asked why the owners can’t just privately practice their religion by not using IUD’s or morning after pills. I want to address that question and then provide a scenario to think about.

For many Christians keeping religion private is not a viable option. We believe that Jesus is Lord of the whole world, not just of the church. Now before you go accusing me of wanting a theocracy, let me assure my readers that I want no such thing. A theocracy didn’t work in ancient Israel and it wouldn’t work now.  And Jesus was pretty clear that he wasn’t interested in creating earthly power structures. In my opinion, a theocracy put in place by even the most well-meaning Christians would eventually, if not rapidly, degenerate into a pretty horrible parody of the Kingdom of God. However, we are called to live our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. So we are faced with something of a dilemma. If we are trying to live under the rule of Christ, then we have to place everything in our lives under that rule – personal and public lives, home and work.

As far as I can tell, Hobby Lobby has a higher minimum wage than necessary because they have placed the world of work under the Lordship of Christ. Have they done this perfectly? No. But they are trying. And the health insurance is a part of that.  Both the desire to pay better wages and the unwillingness to pay for what they see as abortifacients grow out of the same religious conviction. And, I would argue, they have the right to make that decision.  No one is being forced to work for Hobby Lobby. No one is forced to buy from them. They don’t provide a necessary public service (except for those craft-a-holics out there – you know who you are!). 

So here’s a scenario: the owners of Hobby Lobby lose the case and decide that they cannot contribute to what they see as violating their religious beliefs. So they sell their stores to a non-Christian company (we will call them the “Law Abiding Company” or LAC) that doesn’t try to align company policy with the Kingdom of God. LAC puts the appropriate insurance into place for all at the company who qualify. However, since they are not required to keep the salaries the same, or the hours, they decide (as a cost saving measure) to lower all beginning and part time salaries to minimum wage. Further, they know that it is far cheaper to more part time employees than full time because they would no longer have to provide health care. They could just let their employees, many of whom are now working fewer hours for less pay, buy their own insurance under Obamacare.  Thus, though LAC theoretically provides the “right” kind of health insurance to full time employees who can now get any kind of birth control they want, far fewer of their employees are on that health insurance.

LAC also decides to open on Sundays, since they have no religious reason not to, and they require their employees to make themselves available on that day if needed. Everyone has a rotating schedule, so probably no one has to work Sundays all the time, but if that is your schedule, that is when you show up.  And, of course, prices do not go down because the company owners are interested only in profit, so they are going to take that profit for themselves.

My questions are these: Is society better off? Are the people who work for Hobby Lobby better off? Who actually benefits from the decision not to allow Hobby Lobby to abide by their religious principles?

And a broader question is this: Does our society have to be so rigid that there is no room at all for differences of opinion? This is not an isolated incident and the implications are far greater than simply what happens to Hobby Lobby.  Perhaps there really isn’t room for diversity in our society, but I hope we think long and hard about what we are aiming for if that is the case.

---

[1] There are cases in which I think that First Amendment rights should be overridden, such as when a person’s life or public health is at stake, but this is not the case here.

Letter to my State Senator and Representative

If you read my previous post on my opinion on abortions you may be somewhat surprised at this one, but I am trying to be consistent in my own views while supporting public policy that I may not like, but that takes into account an imperfect world.  This is such a difficult topic, with one side seeing only murder and the other side seeing only choice. While I supported the Abortion Bill that was recently passed, it has come to my attention that there is another much more restrictive bill in process.  So this is the letter that I sent to my Congresspersons today. If you agree with my point of view you might want to send a similar letter to yours.  

To: Senator Jane Nelson and Representative Pat Fallon

Re: H.B. No. 59 and any similar bills in the House or Senate

First let me say: I am morally opposed to abortion.  However, since I am not clear when life begins, I support—however reluctantly—the legalization of abortion, up to a point.  I was in favor of the bill that was recently passed limiting abortion after 20 weeks to those with special circumstances.  My concern was not so much fetal pain, as it was viability; the previous limit of 24 weeks seems too close to the point of viability to me.  I also support higher standards for abortion providers.

My purpose in writing today, however, is to urge you to vote against H. B. 59 and any equivalent in the Senate. If I am reading the bill correctly, it would outlaw abortions after the point at which a fetal heartbeat can be detected. While I would rather women not have abortions at all, I recognize that there are times when an abortion is the better of two bad solutions.  I think that as the state we do our duty by insuring that we are not killing a fetus who is potentially viable outside the womb.  But although a heartbeat indicates that a fetus has the capability of later viability, a 5 or 6 week embryo is not yet viable.  And there are different opinions on when that embryo or fetus becomes a person worthy of protection.  So while it breaks my heart to think that women are aborting their fetuses, I don’t think we should limit them to such a drastic extent.

What I would strongly urge you to do is to write and sponsor bills that give access to birth control to all women and provide for sex education for children and youth.   We need health care for women and children, regardless of economic or social situation.  We also need to work on providing child care for women who are trying to work their way out of poverty.

I have always been on the conservative side of the political divide, and still am to some extent.  And as an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, I think we are shirking our own responsibilities in the church to work with the poor. There is so much more that we need to do as a religious community. However, it is clear to me that the problem of poverty needs to be addressed at both the state and the church level. 

I do not make a large amount of money, but I am willing to be taxed at a rate needed to provide for all children to have a safe and healthy start in life and a real chance to succeed. 

Sincerely,

Martha Myre

A Whole-Life Policy (No, not insurance and, yes I do think about things other than human sexuality.)

In a discussion about Wendy Davis and the pro-life/pro-choice debate, one of my Facebook friends said this:

. . . Texas, who claims to value life just executed it's 500 inmate. Last but not least if you want to be pro-life be all of pro-life and support women who choose to be single mothers, head start programs, education, food stamp programs and the list goes on. If we are a country that tries to live by christian values then help the disadvantaged like Christians.

I have to say, I mostly agree with this.  “Mostly” because I have some problem with women who choose to be single mothers. But overall, I think that a whole-life policy requires that we think about abortion as a part of a general approach to life.  

I call this a “whole-life policy” because I oppose abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and war all for the same reason: I think life is sacred.  

Possibly because my grandmother was a single mom before it was common, I have always tried to help and support single moms, who by and large haven’t really “chosen” that status and who have a very difficult job.  So for friends and parishioners who are single moms I have babysat, helped them fill out paperwork for Social Security, food stamps and WIC, chauffeured them to doctor’s appointments, listened and tried to be available when they just needed a break or a sympathetic shoulder to cry on. I have great respect for anyone trying to raise children on their own and I have learned a great deal about love, sacrifice, patience, frustration, and poverty from some of these single moms.  I have also learned that no matter how much government support someone has, the government support will rarely help someone change their status.  At best it will support them in their poverty; but as far as I can tell, the best way to help someone get out of poverty is to build a relationship with that person that enables you to see how all of the parts of her life fit together and how useless simplistic solutions are.  I have felt fairly helpless in trying to help solve the mountain of problems faced by some of these single moms, but at the very least I can try to help them believe in themselves and in their children. 

I have to admit, I don’t have a lot of sympathy in general for women who use abortion as birth control and there are a lot of abortions that fall under that category.  As a pastor, however, I would not condemn a woman who was feeling guilt over a past abortion.  I would assure her that God forgives her and that she needs to accept forgiveness. I would ask her to think about how she could honor her unborn child by working for life in some way – volunteering to read to schoolchildren, serving the homeless, working at a food bank.

But in terms of abortions, I think that late-term abortions are barbaric and I fully support the 20-week limit.  I would actually rather have no abortions.  I don’t think Wendy Davis is a heroine for trying to make sure that women can kill their 24 week fetuses. (See http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/videos/ for interviews with late-term abortion providers) I urge women in particular to stand against abortion, especially late-term abortion.  But I deeply urge everyone and women in particular to stand for those who are trapped in poverty and feel that the only good choice is abortion.  

And one more issue, while I am discussing a whole-life policy.  I am totally opposed to the death penalty and I am sick that Texas has executed 500 people. (And yes, Rick Perry has lost my vote over this.) I have told my family that if I am ever murdered I want them to ask prosecutors not to seek the death penalty if my murderer is brought to court.  I would not seek it for someone killing a member of my family. Make no mistake; I would want to extract justice with my own bare hands.  But I would not.  And the time to make that decision is before anything horrible happens.

So that is a brief look at my “whole-life policy.” There is lots more to say, but that is enough for now.