Contraception: A Right or Choice?

Supreme Court

The Roberts Court, October 2010
Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan. Front row (left to right): Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg


The Supreme Court ruled on two cases this week regarding Obamacare’s contraception mandate. It requires employers to offer 20 types of contraception in their health plans. Three organizations have sued on religious basis and won to some extent; Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

In the Little Sisters of the Poor case the Supreme Court said that they should be allowed to opt out of the mandate. In return they would be required to give employees a letter staying they would not object if employee got contraception elsewhere. It seemed like a bit of a compromise. Although the Little Sisters of the Poor wasn’t happy. They felt they were still being forced to participate in contraception purchases.

Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company. The owners are very religious. They have and still provide contraception. They only objected to four of all options available. This week the Supreme Court agreed that Hobby Lobby has the right to determine which contraception they want to offer by a 5-4 vote. All three women voted against Hobby Lobby.

July 3rd the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of Wheaton College. Again, all three women voted against them. In this case the lawsuit was brought because of religious beliefs as well plus it’s a non-profit. The ruling did not go as far as the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is a temporary exemption but still a minor win for the college.

Contraception Protests

Contraception Protests


As you can imagine this has created a huge uproar including protests. Very high profile people on all sides have weighed in on the rulings. Most of the people objecting claim it’s a war on women. The ones that approve say it a win for religious freedom.

It has nothing to do with a war on women or religion. First, there is a constitutional law protecting religion and gender. When are the rights of one person more important than another? Does anyone have the right to impose their beliefs or feelings on anyone else? Isn’t that what this is about?

Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke


I think it’s a little more fundamental than that. Regardless of your religious beliefs, gender, a private company or non-profit doesn’t the company have the right to decide how to do their business? As far as I know there’s nothing in the Constitution protecting anyone’s right to contraception. Sorry Sandra Fluke.

Every organization in the US decides what benefits they want to offer. I thought that was the freedom we had in this country. Not only choose the benefits but select options within those benefits. Management selects the medical plan options they are willing to pay for and which type. How many organizations provide insurance that covers cosmetic surgery? My vision is bad. I think I have the right to get Lasik surgery through my insurance free. I’m sure they’re millions of women that would love to get free breast implants from their insurance.

Not one person I have heard or read has a real explanation on why this is a war on women. No one is telling them they can’t get contraception. There’s even free options available if they didn’t get it through their insurance. Maybe insurance should pay for condemns.

Oh yeah! There is one argument explaining how it’s a war on women. The fact that there are six men on the Supreme Court and only three women. Women (and men Joe Biden) that claim that men shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. If it was, Men would tell you to do a lot of other things besides how to manage your contraception.

Regarding the lopsided gender in the Supreme Court goes, that doesn’t make any sense. If it does then the country is in bigger trouble then we realize. Maybe we are. What that implies is the judges on the Supreme Court will vote based on their personal feelings, religious beliefs, race, gender or whatever they feel strongly about. What happens when we have six women and three men? Will the court start siding for women just because of their gender and discriminate against men?

I think the three women on the Supreme Court made a big mistake publishing their dissenting opinion. They are supposed to be ruling on the facts and the laws. Not based on their gender. If that’s okay for the female gender then it should be okay for the male gender. Now that really would make it a war on gender.

What do you think?

This entry was posted in BC Topics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.