By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Supreme
Court building on Monday holding signs that read "Birth Control: Not My
Boss's Business."
Much to their chagrin, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
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.
First, 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
addressed -- or even debated -- the question of whether companies can be forced
to provide contraceptive coverage. Department of Health and Human Services
bureaucrats simply asserted that 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
and treating my mutt like it's a mystical direwolf, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment