A Fight for Human Rights

In “On Moral Grounds:Revisited,”Abigail Quintanilla discusses how a government-issued contraceptive mandate, a law that would require companies to supply woman's’ reproductive health care to their employees, is discriminative towards corporations that are opposed to contraceptives for religious reasons. Abigail highlights Hobby Lobby’s case in particular, stating that it is unfair to impose this mandate when it would cover prescriptions and procedures such as abortions and the “morning after” pill that go against the company founder’s Christian beliefs. While her argument is strongly stated, I believe it is weakened by her supporting links going to religiously charged websites rather than neutral, third party sites that explore the issue as a political argument (as the courts must). I also feel that the idea of the mandate being religiously discriminatory is not a strong argument. The company’s founders themselves may not believe in the reproductive rights of a woman, but that is no reason to refuse healthcare to their employees. Just like companies cannot refuse to hire applicants due to sexual orientation, political doctrine, and religious beliefs (or lack thereof), companies should not be able to refuse a government-mandated healthcare plan. The religious beliefs of the company’s founder do not necessarily apply to all of company employees, and just as they cannot discriminate against new hires, that same truth should hold through in all aspects of the job. It is unjust to refuse healthcare opportunities to employees based on purely religious differences, and for that reason I disagree with the notion that Hobby Lobby has a fighting chance when they bring their case to the courts. This, as much as many would like to disagree, is not a religious discrimination—it is a push for the basic human right to healthcare.