Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor | Court decision awry

The recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling, which allows corporations to decide which kinds of contraception and reproductive health care their employee health insurance plans will cover (in the case of Hobby Lobby: yes to Viagra, no to certain types of IUDs) raises some questions. Namely: What does it mean, in practice, to “support procreation” (as the Catholic church does, as many evangelicals do)? Does it mean that people should only ever have sex when conception is intended? Does it mean that anyone who could be pregnant should be pregnant? Does it mean that married people who don’t have children should be … forced to have children, or prevented from having sex?

I would be curious to know whether the owners of Hobby Lobby have sex, and whether they intend to have a baby every time they do so. And I would like to know whether they are “religiously” uncomfortable with the oppressive economic systems their business profits from, systems that pummel the very people Jesus asked his followers to protect. And I would like to know whether they are “religiously” uncomfortable with the environmental degradation their business inevitably contributes to, degradation that destroys God’s sacred earth. And I would like to know, most importantly, why misogyny is still going by any other name.

Luckily, The Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act, which would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision, has just been introduced in Congress. All women and men who care about their ability to decide if, when, and how they become parents — and who believe that male control of women’s sexuality and reproduction is plain old boring — should show fierce support for this act.

Abby Minor

Aaronsburg

  Comments