Letter: Hobby Lobby needs alternative plan
In regards to Hobby Lobby’s CEO’s threat to shutter his business if he is required to provide contraception to his employees: I hope he doesn’t close. But if he doesn’t want to include these medicines in his company’s employees’ health benefits, I think he should have the option to agree to pay for ALL out-of-pocket, pregnancy-related expenses, including pay during a maternity leave, and to allow more sick days per child a woman has (because we all know kids get sick and parents have to take time off work) while she works for that company. Also, the woman’s job should be secure during her pregnancy and maternity leave (except for justifiable terminations). If companies agree to this, they should be exempt from providing birth control. I understand religious beliefs and rights, but if you aren’t willing to provide the necessary benefits and support to women who get pregnant, you are hypocritical. I also think that if you are yelling and screaming to end abortion, you also better be fostering or adopting kids. If not, you are hypocritical. You can’t say you don’t have the time or money to foster or adopt a child, but then expect those who become pregnant unexpectedly to raise their own children if they feel they can’t do so appropriately. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Even Christians find themselves pregnant when they don’t intend to be. It is going to happen. We have all kinds of charities and government programs that help moms feed and clothe their babies and young kids, but those kids are forgotten as they mature. I don’t like a doctrine that worries only about babies, but not children until they graduate from school. Why don’t we see these same people screaming for more services for teens and at-risk youth and pouring money into neighborhoods that house large numbers of these at-risk youth, rather than only into campaigns to end abortion (which I think is an absolutely horrible option, by the way)? I’ve worked in the inner cities as a teacher in New Orleans and Indy. I’ve worked at a homeless agency in downtown Indy. I’ve seen the absolute misery and abuse of some children who live in poverty or come from homes where it is obvious the adults should never have become parents. Seeing these children’s abuse, neglect and suffering is beyond heartbreaking. I wouldn’t want an animal to suffer the way these kids do. So I have to wonder, if given the choice, would I rather they had not been born or have them endure the horrid suffering and miserable “life sentence” they will experience while on Earth (and the likely misery they will also pass on to their children or others if they turn to crime)? I’m not sure. I frown on abortion if used in lieu of birth control, but I don’t want to force a person who knows she can’t properly care for, or who doesn’t want, a child to have to do so. Yes, we can all agree that these women shouldn’t be getting pregnant in the first place, but it’s going to happen. That’s a reality and a moot point to argue. This whole debate is a fight over a small pill, but it really has much bigger implications that no one seems to talk about. I agree it isn’t fair to have to choose between your beliefs or your business, and companies shouldn’t have to as long as, either way, they are being responsible to their employees – such companies should be allowed to offer alternative coverage to women if they don’t want to cover birth control due to religious reasons for opposing it. They shouldn’t be able to just opt out and offer their employees no other options.
Karin Park, 46032