fbpx
Articles

Ladies, Don’t be Fooled: Women Won in the Hobby Lobby Case

/
July 2, 2014

"This is the scariest thing the Court has ever done,” emailed a friend to me yesterday. Understandably, women’s hearts are beating fast and our heads are spinning with confusion due to uproars declaring a heightened “war on women” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sebelius v. Hobby LobbyStores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius decisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold citizens’ First Amendment right to live and work according to our moral convictions should not scare women. What should frighten us is the deceptive and potentially harmful misinformation so-called “progressive” voices within pro-abortion lobby groups, mainstream media, and, most disappointingly, from some within the Church are feeding us.

Lending to the “war on women” outcry yesterday was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. According to Huffington Post, Richards stated, “Today, the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families giving bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage.”

First, let us quickly debunk Richards’ misleading sentiments by clarifying that women are not denied access to birth control coverage. In fact, Hobby Lobby and Constenaga wood are willing to provide 16 out of the 20 forms of contraception dictated by the Obama Administration’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate. The point of contention arose when the Southern Baptist Green family and Mennonite Wood family declined to pay for abortion-inducing emergency contraception, including Plan B, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, and Ella.

Just to prove that the Supreme Court decision did nothing to limit women from accessing these four abortifacients, this morning I visited my local CVS pharmacy. Walking straight back to the pharmacy I simply asked, “Do you sell Plan B?” The young female attendant said, “No, but we have the generic version Next Choice.” The cost of came to about a little over $40.00.

I declined to finalize the sale, but did notice that there were no conservative evangelicals or conservative politicians forbidding me—a 26 year-old woman—from accessing these abortion-inducing drugs. Am I really supposed to believe that my health is at risk because my boss will not pay for it?

Second, and most importantly, Richards ignores that women actually won yesterday. Although opponents of the court’s ruling are directing women by focusing on a “personhood of corporations” argument, it is vital to remember that behind the Christian family-run business Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are women. Namely, Barbara Green and Elizabeth Hahn sought protection to live by their convictions. These women and their families were victories and we should celebrate their courage to defend their constitutional rights in the face of fierce hostility.

In addition, Hobby Lobby’s legal counsel consisted of several women including Lori Windham. Speaking for the Green and Hahn family, Windham shared, “Women’s voices are heard standing up for religious freedom. This case is about the freedoms of all Americans, women and men. And it’s something that all Americans should celebrate.”

Glance at the photographs taken outside of the Supreme Court moments after the ruling was released. You will notice the photos captured joyful young women, many of my friends who work for faith-based pro-life, pro-family non-profits. These young Christian women  were supporting religious freedom for all women, not corporate greed or capitalism.

Women of faith like Barbara Green, Elizabeth Han, and our pro-life friends and I, are ignored because we refuse to depend on emergency contraception for liberation. True liberation and the ability to live out Truth can only be found in Jesus Christ alone. According to Galatians 5:1, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is filled with women (and men’s) liberation stories. As followers of Christ, we are charged with the Great Commission to share the message of true salvation  (Matthew 28:16-20). But sadly, many among the Religious Left continue to base women’s liberation from an embellished oppressive, patriarchal society through birth control instead of the transforming liberation through Jesus Christ.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), is one such voice inside the Christian community that sees so-called “reproductive” rights as women’s ticket to freedom. The RCRC is a coalition including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ (UCC). Outraged by the court’s ruling, RCRC stated, “Real religious liberty protects the rights of women to make thoughtful decisions about whether and when to use contraception in private consultation with their doctors, their families and their own faith – there is no place for a boss’s beliefs in such conversations.”

Missing the point, Rev. Richard Cizik, President of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, wrote, “The supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are being ‘pro-life.’ They are wrong. A massive study conducted in 2012 showed that contraception coverage without a co-pay could dramatically reduce the abortion rate.” Since when is the Hobby Lobby ruling about monthly contraception?

Again, David Gushee and Brian McLaren, two leading voice among the Evangelical Left, both raised the same question, “Are critics taking seriously the public health benefits of no-cost contraception coverage, and the moral benefits of the likely dramatic reduction in the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions?”

Aside from the fact that these professing believers do not acknowledge that these drugs are life-terminating, these men are misleading women to believe these drugs are safe and regular forms of birth control.

Women, don’t be fooled! As RCRC wrongly claims, Hobby Lobby’s exemption from paying for these four abortifacients will not cost families “$40 a month.” Nor can they be used as regular forms of contraception.  The major problem with Cizik, McLaren, Gushee’s shared argument is that they mislead women to believe that Next Choice, Plan B, and Ella are all regular forms of birth control. According to Next Choice’s packaging, is to be used in an “emergency” only and not as a regular form of birth control because it contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel, the drug typically comprising the Pill. Yet, regular forms of the Pill can cause women serious health complications including breast, cervical, and liver cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute.

If there is such a thing as a “war on women,” it is being launched by “progressives” who view women’s worth according to how much free birth control we attain. Thankfully, our value extends beyond our ability to “family plan.” Women are hardworking, witty, caring and intelligent beings made in the image of our Creator, who calls us to live by faith beyond our sanctuary walls.

Chelsen Vicari
Chelsen Vicari serves as the Institute on Religion & Democracy’s Director of Evangelical Action and is the author of the forthcoming book Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (Frontline, September 2014).

Chelsen Vicari

Chelsen Vicari serves as the Evangelical Program Director for the Institute on Religion and Democracy. She earned her Masters of Arts in Government from Regent University and frequently contributes to conservative outlets. She is also the author of Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24