ABOUT USFaith & Justice

img-hand-with-pill-2
The Abortion Mandate: A Hard Pill To Swallow
Several years ago, public outcry over blood diamonds—those mined in war-torn countries and sold to finance the activities of brutal warlords was everywhere. Women were returning jewelry that was not certified as “conflict-free.” It even became a cause du jour in Hollywood, culminating with an award-winning film starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

What if the U.S. government mandated that all diamonds come from a country notorious for its trade in blood diamonds? All engagement rings, anniversary earrings, and Mother’s Day necklaces could only contain diamonds mined in the suspect country. Many jewelry retailers believe that using such diamonds is immoral, and have adopted policies to ensure that such gems are not sold in their stores. Should they be forced to comply with this mandate? Should they be forced to violate their sincerely held belief that selling diamonds that might have caused the suffering and death of innocent people is a grave wrong?

This is exactly what the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate, which requires family businesses to pay for items that they believe can cause abortions, imposed upon both Hobby Lobby and our client, Conestoga Wood Specialties—a small Pennsylvania-based cabinet manufacturer owned by a devout Christian Mennonite family. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled against this mandate.

To socially conscious family businesses like Conestoga, it is a grave moral wrong to deliberately terminate a human life, no matter how long it has been since that life was conceived. These families have courageously taken a stand for the sanctity of every human life, even though it means openly defying the demands of the government.

This should have been an easy case. Among the fundamental rights our Founding Fathers enumerated is the right not to be coerced into doing something that violates one’s sincerely held religious beliefs. If a person (or the family business he operates) can be forced to transgress those beliefs, then the guarantee of free exercise of religion is not worth the paper on which it is written. Any law or government policy that furthers such coercion is fundamentally unjust.

img-hand-with-pill-1But in this debate over the legality of the mandate, the Left has created and exalted a “right” to employer-provided abortifacients—a right James Madison must have missed when drafting the Bill of Rights. This “right” demands that my employer, whom I probably knew was religious when I applied for my job, must pay for pills that can terminate a human life. Apparently, it is too much of a burden to expect a person who wants these pills—which cost less than a couple of large pizzas—to pay for them.

Imagine me walking into my local jewelry store, proclaiming that I have a “right” to purchase blood diamonds because it is just too expensive to pay for those conflict-free certified diamonds. Under the Left’s concept of freedom, my right to that low-cost engagement ring trumps the jewelry store’s deeply held moral opposition to the gems.

And this “right” to employer-provided abortifacients is enforced by none other than the Internal Revenue Service—the same government agency that’s been under investigation by Congress for targeting socially conservative organizations and losing potentially incriminating e-mails. For a family business like Conestoga, the potential IRS penalties for not complying with the mandate—$100 per employee per day—are devastating.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize this new “right” to abortifacients. Instead, it recognized that no one, whether sitting at his own kitchen table or behind the desk at his company office, should be forced to violate his deeply held beliefs in this manner.

This is a victory for everyone, even those who desire access to abortion pills. After all, if the government can force Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby to pay for morally objectionable items, then tomorrow it can force you to violate your most cherished beliefs. 

Preventing that harm is what freedom of religion is all about. 

Leave a comment


Share this page