Thinking More About the Hobby Lobby Case

I don't fit neatly into any of the categories of Hobby Lobby commentators.  I was once fiercely pro-choice.  I thought that a pregnant woman should have access to an abortion at any moment in the pregnancy that she wanted to have it.

Then my sister became pregnant, and I learned how far medical technology had come, and I became queasy about all abortions.  It was harder to argue that an embryo or fetus was just a collection of cells.

In the same year, my mother-in-law was dying, and I became queasier about end-of-life issues.  I think we give up on life too quickly, and yet, I also can see the wisdom of those who talk about quality of life.

I have not resolved any of these issues.

I am also not as anti-corporate as many of my friends.  I am not as quick to believe that bosses are evil.  I understand the agony of living one's values, especially when those values are minority views in society.

If I decided to create a company, employ people, and earn money that way, I'd want to be able to structure my company to align with my values.  My values are informed by my liberal Christian views and my liberal arts education.  I don't expect that I'd run up against government policies, but what would happen if I did?  And what if by that point, my company had become quite large and prosperous?

I find it interesting that the Hobby Lobby policy isn't banning all birth control.  A woman could be on a pill that prevents fertilization, but not a pill that destroys a fertilized egg.  I  understand the difference, and the policy doesn't seem as onerous to me as it does to many of my feminist friends.

I also agree with Justice Ginsberg, who worries where this decision will lead.  It's a thorny issue, this one of religious liberty.  I predict we will wrestle with these issues for decades.  We already have been.

What does it say that we may settle our minds around gay marriage more quickly than around women's fertility?