It's always dangerous when I write at night. I've been switching back and forth all day about whether or not to get in on the Hobby Lobby case. It stems from highly controversial matters. Primarily, do we as Christians have a right to have our religious beliefs protected? I would tend to believe that most of you who read this would answer yes. If your answer is no, there's probably no point in reading any further. By doing so, you're likely to shout at your computer much like I do when I read information which I disagree with.
If you're still with me, there is another layer of this controversy that deserves attention. Why does Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for birth control for its employees? I did some research.
It seems that droves of people are angered that Hobby Lobby would refuse birth control to its employees. In response, I wanted to know more about the drugs Hobby Lobby is against and what their reasoning for such opposition would be.
First, I found that out that according to USA Today, the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used." In fact, Hobby Lobby approves sixteen out of twenty types of birth control. This brings me to share what I found about two particular methods that Hobby Lobby does not approve of.
(Hobby Lobby is no way keeping women from using these drugs, They are still highly available. They're simply against covering them.)
Hobby Lobby (namely the Greens who own the family business) fought not to have to pay for coverage of Plan B "the morning after pill" and ella, another morning after pill. While the "morning after pill" is not the same as an "abortion pill", its effect on an already existing pregnancy is unknown, according to multiple sources.
I've heard more times than I can count that these pills do not affect an existing pregnancy, but sites that I encountered said otherwise (and I tried to stay off Christian-leaning sites lest I appear biased).
According to the Center for Arizona Policy, "the 'morning after pills' (MAP's) potential mechanisms of action include
- interference with transport of the fertilized egg to the uterus
and
-prevention of implantation in the uterine wall.
Both instances are referring to a fertilized egg. If a fertilized egg is a human, the morning after pills act as an abortifacient (an abortion causing drug). Hobby Lobby has the right not to pay for such a drug. I might add that these pills (the Plan B MAP) can be obtained without a prescription. Plan B is found at some pharmacies on the shelf. There is no need for it to be covered in a health plan just as there is no need for coverage of other obtainable drugs without a prescription, such as cough drops.
There is more concern for the "morning after pill" ella, which Hobby Lobby has earned the right not to cover. Ella is made to be taken up to five days after intercourse. Its chemical makeup is closer to RU-486 (the abortion pill). Arizona Policy states that "'morning after pills' can cause an abortion. It further states that the main difference is that the morning after pill "can only be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse, is available over the counter, and doesn't always act as an abortifacient".
Hobby Lobby covers sixteen drugs/methods for contraception. For someone who has not been using contraception and fears pregnancy, they have the ability to purchase the MAP. There is no reason why a company that believes that a newly-formed life could be destroyed by this drug should have to pay for it.
Lastly, Drugs.com (which I suspect has no political or moral leaning) suggests that a woman can use ella in case of suspected pregnancy. Isn't an intentionally-ended pregnancy an abortion? It goes on to say that "the risks to a fetus when using ella is unknown and should be apprised (as) a potential hazard to the fetus."
Maybe most interesting in the ella drug information, is the section titled "Use in Specific Populations". Ella is a tablet of ulipristal acetate. The following describes what happened when ulipristal acetate was administered to rats, rabbits and monkeys.
Ulipristal acetate was administered repeatedly to pregnant rats and rabbits during the period of organogenesis. Embryofetal loss was noted in all pregnant rats and in half of the pregnant rabbits following 12 and 13 days of dosing, at daily drug exposures 1/3 and 1/2 the human exposure, respectively, based on body surface area (mg/m2). There were no malformations of the surviving fetuses in these studies. Adverse effects were not observed in the offspring of pregnant rats administered ulipristal acetate during the period of organogenesis through lactation at drug exposures 1/24 the human exposure based on AUC. Administration of ulipristal acetate to pregnant monkeys for 4 days during the first trimester caused pregnancy termination in 2/5 animals at daily drug exposures 3 times the human exposure based on body surface area.
I'm not looking for a fight. I am truly compelled to be informed. Maybe its my passion for the cause of the unborn that compels me. Take Hobby Lobby and do with it what you will. I personally will pray thanks that a victory has been won. And I'll probably soon use the two Hobby Lobby gift cards that have been burning a hole in my wallet.
Here are several of my sources:
http://www.pregnancy-period.com/termination-of-pregnancy.html