The
Hobby Lobby Case before SCOTUS is premised by the court's earlier ruling
on Citizens United. This legislative frankenstein reiterates the
SCOTUS decree that corporations are PEOPLE and thusly entitled to 1st
amendment rights of free speech. The crux of the argument now, once
the Affordable Care Act has been mandated as federal law, is that
corporations want to exercise their free speech rights on the basis
of religious or moral convictions. In other words, they are seeking a
“conscientious objection” status which will allow them to
circumvent the federal law.
Although a stretch, it could be said that
these corporations, as PEOPLE, are protesting a law much in the way
draft dodgers and draft card burners protested the federal government
conscripting them to fight in the Vietnam War. Despite the unique
features in this case before SCOTUS the general outline of the case
is a moral and civil rights battle that has been fermenting for decades. The battle is about the sovereignty over a womans
reproductive rights with sweeping implications for males as well.
However, a solemn question looms larger than the breadth of the particulars in
the Hobby Lobby case which is whether to pay for its female employees
health coverage that includes contraceptives. The question is, in
Orwellian terms; whose free speech is MORE equal than the others? If since SCOTUS has decided that corporations are PEOPLE, are they then,
through the sheer size of the manpower within the corporations, more
deserving of free speech than the individual citizen?
Perhaps the
fact that, according to statistics compiled by Forbes Magazine, the
parity in
female CEO's in Fortune 500 companies to male CEO's is alarmingly low
at 8.1% as of 2013 might play into the sovereignty question. That the chief plaintiff of the Hobby
Lobby Case is a woman only underscores the disparity. Moreover,
Viagra, Cialis and other pde5 inhibitors (erectile dysfunction drugs)
are components of health care policies which are conspicuously
intended for men. Yet their inclusion in these policies has either
never or at best disingenuously been subject to public debate. These
male-centric drugs enhance and augment a male's self-determination
regarding their reproductive free speech rights.
It is now time that
this circular and illogical rhetoric be cast aside or better yet,
turned on its head. Imagine if the hypothetical contra-argument was
set forth by Hobby Lobby and other corporations afforded a PERSON
status. What if corporations required their employees to adopt the
morning-after pill as a component of their health coverage based on
religious or moral articles of faith.
These corporation PEOPLE won't
want a portion of their work staff hindered by 9 months of pregnancy
and intermittent care of a newborn. No, that would negatively effect
the female employee's labor efficiency. So what better way to combat
a woman's free fall in labor output than to encourage an early
pregnancy termination. The fact that a man or a woman's labor output
is sovereign personal property and not a profit variable controlled
by corporate PEOPLE is a whole other can of worms.
