Religion and Politics
What’s abortifacient? (See: http://bit.ly/1b6auBn)
The dispute of abortions have been a hot topic for sometime now and with the implements of Obamacare in the United States it’s about to get a whole lot hotter. Under the Affordable Care Act’s terms employers will be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception. However evangelical Christian owners of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc do not agree with the new policy and wants to know if they have the right to religious speech.
I have always stood on the grounds of “pro-choice”; every individual has the right to mandate how he or she should live their life, especially on the preventative measures for pregnancy. However, Hobby Lobby, like many other religious groups believe pregnancy starts at conception. Specifically there are four forms of birth control that they consider “abortifacient” and violate their beliefs including IUD’s, a contraceptive rod implanted in a women’s arm and two forms of “morning after pills.” However Hobby Lobby does currently provide coverage for 16 other forms of birth control.
Dr. Barbra Levy, vice president for the health for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says pregnancy doesn’t occur until implantation in the uterus. To further back up Levy’s claims, The Department of Health and Human Services states the official definition of pregnancy as “the period of time from implantation until delivery.”
Dr. Joseph Stanford a professor in family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah says when patients require about contraceptives he makes sure to inform them on all the possible ways life begins. If the patient still wants the birth control he will refer them to colleagues. Stanford will not dispute that people’s definitions of conception vary, but is not willing do prescribe something he believes is immoral.
As a person that believes everyone has a right to live freely I find this topic to be very controversial. Should employers such as Hobby Lobby, and company’s alike get to dictate their employee’s coverage due to their beliefs? And can we ignore the right company’s have to voice their religious beliefs? This article is one example of religion and politics not mixing and leaves me with questions for the future, to what extent can religion have precedent on our 21st century society?