Charles LaPiene: Liberal reaction to Hobby Lobby 'hysterical' 'Why place the burden on me for their choice?

Last modified: Wednesday, July 16, 2014
To the editor:

Readers of the Daily Hampshire Gazette who moaned and groaned piously at the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision should think about their hysterical reaction. To imply, as they have done, that the decision is “really discriminatory,” “not fair,” “provides an obstacle to access the full range of reproductive health care,” etc., is like booking a trip to Shangri-La.

Central to all these moans is the position that companies and the federal government have a responsibility to provide “reproductive services” to their female employees regardless of the religious or moral beliefs of the company owners (or of taxpayers). The Gazette frequently portrays owners of corporations as evil and cigar-smoking fat cats. Have profits suddenly become an excusable windfall to be extorted for social use? Is this not enough evidence to convince even the most liberal person that their beliefs should not constitute legal stealing of anyone’s money and resources?

I do not feel it is the government’s place to legislate in this arena. The key phrase missing is, “at whose expense?” No one is being prevented from availing themselves of the services. So why, in the name of common sense, should it be an employer’s responsibility (or mine as a taxpayer), to provide these services? Surely, even “young, poor women” — “the most marginalized in our society” — can afford the cost of a condom instead of a tattoo! Why place the burden on me for their “choice” of behavior, or on the company providing the health insurance?

We have gone so far down the road to socialism that we think all things must be provided by the benevolent government — even contraceptives? When those opposed to social pillaging have the gall to suggest that some things should be left to the individual, we are pilloried by the bleeding hearts as reckless, unfeeling and cruel.

“Where will this end?” asked Hampshire College’s Marlene Fried in one news story. It will end when she and her anointed sisters realize there are limits to how far they can go to pick the pockets of corporations whose profits they despise and impose undeserved moral and fiscal burdens on taxpayers.

Charles LaPiene