OpinionOp-Ed
Op-Ed

Alito agrees: Your birth control is not your boss' business

ColumnCommentaryOpinionAbortion IssueBusinessFamily PlanningPolitics
Jonah Goldberg's 'Game of Thrones' analogy in Hobby Lobby ruling
Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't ban birth control; it just means some employees have to pay for it themselves

Abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Monday holding signs that read "Birth Control: Not My Boss's Business."

Much to their chagrin, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed in his ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

Of course, that's not how supporters of the government's contraception mandate see it. They actually believe that birth control is their boss' business, and they want the federal government to force employers to agree.

More on that later, but it's first worth noting how we got here. Contrary to a lot of lazy punditry, there is no Obamacare contraception mandate.

As my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes, even President Obama's liberal rubber-stamp Congress of 2009-10 never said — or even debated — the question of whether companies can be forced to provide such coverage. Department of Health and Human Services bureaucrats simply asserted they could impose such a requirement. Indeed, "several pro-life Democrats," Ponnuru adds, "who provided the law's narrow margin of victory in the House have said they would have voted against the law had it included the mandate."

Moreover, Hobby Lobby never objected to covering birth control per se. It already covers 16 kinds of birth control for its employees. But it objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don't prevent a pregnancy but terminate one. The pro-abortion-rights lobby can argue that "abortion" and "birth control" are synonymous terms, but that doesn't make it true.

One lesson here is that overreaching can have unintended consequences. We saw that last week when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the White House had overplayed its hand when it comes to the president's ability to make recess appointments. By abusing a presidential prerogative, Obama invited the court to address the issue. As a result, presidential power — at least in this regard — is now more curtailed.

Similarly, the Hobby Lobby decision opens the door for closely held companies to deny coverage of all forms of birth control, if they can plausibly argue that doing so would violate their conscience. The decision doesn't apply to large, publicly held corporations, but even if it did, it is unlikely that many companies would go down that path. And even if they did, birth control would not be "banned"; employees simply would have to pay for it themselves. The notion that denying a subsidy for a product is equivalent to banning that product is one of the odder tenets of contemporary liberalism.

This gets us to why I think the ruling's majority essentially agreed with the protesters. If I like to dress up as a character from "Game of Thrones" on weekends, pretending to fight snow zombies, that's none of my employer's business. But if I ask my employer to pay for my trip to a "Game of Thrones" fan convention, I am asking him to make it his business. If my employer refuses, that may or may not be unfair, but it's his right. If, in response, I go to the convention and have the government force my employer to pay for my travel, that only makes things worse. It not only makes my private pursuits my boss' business, it makes them the business of taxpayers and a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

At the heart of this, and so many other recent controversies, is an honest disagreement about how society should be organized. For liberals (and far too many Republicans), businesses should be de facto, if not de jure, extensions of government. If something is desirable, businesses should be forced to impose it. The fact that the owner disagrees or that it is not in the business' economic interest is immaterial. And it's not just businesses. Recall that the Obama administration has tried to force explicitly religious groups to betray their beliefs as well.

Obviously, there's room for nuance here. Few people think that we should scrap minimal workplace safety rules, for instance. No one thinks the Church of Satan should be permitted ritual human sacrifice. But when in doubt, the government should err on the side of laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui meme.

Not everything is your boss' business, or anybody else's.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
ColumnCommentaryOpinionAbortion IssueBusinessFamily PlanningPolitics
  • LAUSD's students need better libraries, not iPads
    LAUSD's students need better libraries, not iPads

    Like Supt. John Deasy and others in the Los Angeles Unified School District, I am concerned about the educational civil rights of the district's students. While the iPad-for-every-student controversy has gotten much media coverage lately, a long-term problem has gotten very little...

  • L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions
    L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions

    Soon after taking office in 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed an executive order banning construction by "any city department or agency on major roads" during the morning and evening rush hour. It was a popular move, intended to reduce traffic delays and "improve our...

  • Will Scotland choose independence?
    Will Scotland choose independence?

    Voters in Scotland this week could end their country's 300-year-old union with England. That possibility perplexes not only many Britons but also President Obama, the leader of a country that chose to "dissolve the political bands" with England in 1776. In June, Obama said that...

  • A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all
    A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all

    Hardly a week goes by without some new study, quarterly report or economic forecast proclaiming the same troubling news — a combination of stagnant, low wages and a high cost of living has left far too many Angelenos struggling to make ends meet. About 25% of families with children in...

  • Football: Unsafe at any level
    Football: Unsafe at any level

    In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists."...

  • The nuns on the bus have a new issue
    The nuns on the bus have a new issue

    This week, Republicans in the Senate blocked a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a measure that would have fallen far short of the required two-thirds majority even if there had been a final vote. But fear not. The campaign...

Comments
Loading