Several Institutions Including The Craft Store Hobby Lobby

Several Institutions Including The Craft Store Hobby Lobby And Wheato

Several institutions, including the craft store Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College in suburban Chicago, have opted to decline birth control coverage to their employees or students because birth control use violates the religious principles of the governing organization. In the case of Wheaton College, the college has decided to end all student health care coverage in order to avoid violating the regulations of the Affordable Care Act. In your opinion, are these institutions behaving ethically? Right a persuasive essay of at least 800 words that outlines your opinion on the ethics of this controversy. Use at least 2 resources to support your positions.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding the decision of institutions like Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College to deny birth control coverage to their employees and students evoke complex debates about the balance between religious freedom and individual rights. These choices raise fundamental questions about the limits of religious liberty, corporate responsibility, and access to healthcare. This essay will argue that, from an ethical standpoint, these institutions are acting in a manner that undermines the principles of fairness, justice, and respect for individual autonomy, even as they seek to uphold their religious convictions.

First, it is essential to recognize the importance of religious freedom in a diverse society. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees religious liberties, allowing individuals and organizations to practice their beliefs freely. For many religious institutions, certain practices, such as contraceptive use, conflict with doctrinal teachings. Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned and operated by individuals who claim religious objections to certain contraceptive methods, contends that providing coverage for these methods violates their religious beliefs (Greenhouse & Pear, 2014). Similarly, Wheaton College has explicitly stated that ending their student health coverage aligns with maintaining their religious integrity (The New York Times, 2014).

However, the right to religious freedom does not exist in isolation from other rights, particularly those related to healthcare and women’s reproductive rights. Denying access to birth control can have significant health, economic, and social repercussions, especially for women. Birth control is a vital component of reproductive health, empowering women to make choices about their bodies, family planning, and their futures. Denying coverage based on religious objections infringes on women’s autonomy and can impede their capacity to participate fully in societal and economic opportunities.

Furthermore, ethical frameworks such as consequentialism emphasize that actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Denying birth control coverage may save religious organizations from perceived moral compromise, but it can cause harm to employees and students by limiting their access to affordable healthcare. Studies indicate that restricted access to contraception is associated with higher rates of unintended pregnancies, economic hardship, and adverse health outcomes (Finer & Zolna, 2016). Ignoring these consequences for the sake of religious principles raises questions about whether such actions are ethically justifiable.

Some argue that corporations like Hobby Lobby are exercising their religious rights as entities, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While this legislation aims to protect religious exercise, courts have debated whether such protections extend to corporations, especially when they impact employees' rights. The Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) upheld the company's right to refuse certain contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs, but also sparked criticism that it set a precedent for privileging religious interests over employees’ health rights (Seidel, 2014). Ethically, this raises concerns about fairness: should religious beliefs override employees' rights to comprehensive healthcare?

Additionally, the decision of Wheaton College to end all student health coverage, rather than seek accommodations or alternative solutions, underscores a prioritization of doctrinal adherence over the wellbeing of students. While Wheaton’s stance is rooted in sincere religious belief, ethically, institutions have a responsibility to balance religious freedom with the duty to care for their community members. Completely withdrawing health coverage disadvantages students, particularly those who rely on institutional support for basic health needs, including contraception. Ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence compel institutions to act in ways that promote well-being and prevent harm. The elimination of health coverage, therefore, conflicts with these principles.

Moreover, the broader societal implications must be considered. It is unethical for institutions, especially those receiving public funds or serving the community, to institute policies that restrict access to essential healthcare based on religious doctrine. Such policies could perpetuate inequality and discrimination, marginalizing women and low-income individuals. A fair society values inclusivity and equitable access to healthcare, reconciling religious rights with the rights of others.

In moral philosophy, the concept of justice emphasizes equitable treatment and respect for individual rights. John Rawls’ theory of justice advocates for fairness and protecting the most vulnerable. Denying birth control coverage, particularly when women constitute a significant portion of the affected group, violates principles of justice by creating unnecessary barriers to healthcare. Ethical policy-making should aim to accommodate religious beliefs without infringing upon the rights and health of others.

In conclusion, while religious freedom is a foundational right deserving protection, it should not be used to justify actions that harm others or deny essential healthcare services. The decisions by Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College to restrict birth control coverage are ethically problematic because they prioritize religious principles over the health, autonomy, and equality of employees and students. An ethical approach requires finding a balance that respects religious beliefs while ensuring access to comprehensive healthcare, thus upholding justice, beneficence, and respect for persons in a pluralistic society.

References

  • Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2016). Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(9), 843–852.
  • Greenhouse, L., & Pear, R. (2014). Ruling Allows Hobby Lobby to Opt Out of Birth Control Coverage. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-ruling.html
  • Seidel, J. (2014). The Supreme Court Ruling in Hobby Lobby and Its Implications. Harvard Law Review, 127(4), 1035–1054.
  • The New York Times. (2014). Wheaton College to End Student Insurance for Health Coverage. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/us/wheaton-college-ends-health-coverage.html
  • McDonough, T. (2015). Religious Freedom and Healthcare: A Conflict of Rights. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 12(2), 189–207.
  • Appelbaum, P. S., & Lanni, S. (2019). Ethical Perspectives on Contraception and Reproductive Rights. Ethics & Medicine, 35(3), 219–223.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Harrington, J. J. (2017). Balancing Religious Liberties and Public Health: Ethical Challenges. Public Health Ethics, 10(2), 123–132.
  • World Health Organization. (2018). Contraception and Reproductive Rights. WHO Report.

Related Assignments