Skip to main content

David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, says he opposes insurance coverage of birth control because he believes it can "cause abortions." Furthermore, he states that his opposition is based on "Biblical principles" including the idea that human life begins at conception.  The case will go to court soon, and whether or not the judge realizes it, Mr. Green is wrong on both the medical facts about birth control, as well as the allegedly "biblical" principles involved, as I shall explain below.

David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., says in protest of the ACA mandate requiring birth control to be covered by insurance:

“A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance.   Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.  It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.”

Ironically, he quotes James 3:17 in support of his position:  “The wisdom that comes from above is first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruit, without uncertainty or insincerity.”

Open to reason?  Full of mercy?  Without uncertainty?  Ok, then let us reason together.


Mr. Green insists that providing health insurance to his employees that covers birth control, which he believes “might end a life after the moment of conception” (and we will address this belief in the next section), violates his religious liberty as a Christian in that it “goes against Biblical principles.”  Which principles are these?

The term “Christian” generally means “a follower of Christ.”  So, what did Christ say about abortion?  NOTHING.  However, despite our Founder’s total silence on the issue, anti-choice Christians assert that their position is based on “Biblical principles.”  I have already addressed this assertion in some depth in my previous article, “Is The Bible Pro-Life?”  But, let’s review a few pertinent points.

First, one might think that this is common knowledge, but just in case it isn’t:  Jesus was a Jew.  Judaism states that a baby is part of its mother until it is halfway born, and begins life as an individual when it takes its first breath – not at the moment of conception.  Because biblically the breath is life, God imparts the soul (which was created before conception) along with the first breath.  But, the status of official “personhood” as such was only awarded to male infants one month after birth.  (It remains unclear to me as to when, or whether, female infants became “persons.”)  While the fetus is valued as a “potential human life,” the Jewish faith does permit abortion for several reasons including the circumstances of the conception (adultery, rape, incest), the age of the woman (under 17 or over 40), and her physical and psychological health, and requires abortion if the mother’s life is in danger.

So, while fundamentalist Christians like Mr. Green believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, their belief has no Biblical basis and would not have been shared by their Jewish Founder.  In addition, this belief is a fairly recent development in modern Christianity, which was only adopted by evangelicals in the early 1980s.  

“without insincerity"

Therefore, Mr. Green’s claim that his objection to birth control coverage by insurance is based on “Christian/Biblical” principles is simply not true.  Be that as it may, let us give him the benefit of the doubt, because he sincerely believes it to be true.  Religious belief is a deeply personal thing, is protected by the Constitution, and cannot legally be subjected to any litmus test for “truth” or even internal consistency.  Mr. Green has a right to his beliefs.

 But, while everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how peculiar, can the same be said about scientific fact?  Let us take a look at the medical facts.


Mr. Green said, “- we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception…”  He believes contraceptives might end a life, but do they?

First, let us address the anti-choice contention that modern science supports their view of a fertilized ovum being a “person” from the moment of conception.  It does not, for the simple reason that science does not concern itself with metaphysical definitions such as “personhood.”

What science can tell us about is the biological mechanics of pregnancy, a subject on which many people apparently are uninformed and/or misinformed.  I have already addressed this at some length in my article, “Biology, Personhood and Civil Rights,” and I will not go into great detail here.

“without uncertainty”  “abortion-causing drugs” ?

Hormonal contraceptives all work by preventing ovulation, and where there is no egg, there can be no conception.  With unprotected sex, fertilization can happen anywhere from 30 minutes (if an egg has already been released and is present in the fallopian tube) or up to 5 days later, if sperm survive and ovulation occurs during that time.  The pill prevents fertilization by fooling the body into thinking it is already pregnant, thereby suppressing ovulation on a monthly basis when taken regularly.  Plan B (the “morning after pill”) prevents fertilization by delaying ovulation when taken the next day.  Ella (the “week after pill”) suppresses ovulation if taken up to 5 days after sex, thereby preventing fertilization.  But, contrary to popular belief, these drugs do not prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum!  If the ovary has already released the egg, and sperm are present, the drugs are completely ineffective and the woman can only pray that the odds will be in her favor and it will fail to implant (which happens approximately 60% of the time under normal circumstances without any intervention).  

It should be noted that even if these drugs did prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum – which the latest science says they don’t – this would not constitute “abortion” per se.  Abortion, whether induced or “spontaneous” (i.e. miscarriage) is the termination of a pregnancy, which technically does not occur until implantation, 7 to 10 days after fertilization.  This is what I learned while training for my medical career back in 1992 and remains the standard medical definition of “pregnancy” despite efforts on the part of the anti-choice movement to change the definitions to better suit their agenda.

So, Mr. Green’s concern that hormonal contraceptives cause abortion is not, in fact, an issue.  Nonetheless, his personal religious convictions, however unfounded they may be in scripture and tradition, remain protected by the Constitution.  So where does that leave in terms of public policy?


Mr. Green and those in his camp say that requiring an employer to provide insurance coverage for contraception violates his religious liberty.  But, what about the religious liberty of the employees?  Why is it ok for the employer to impose his own religious beliefs on the employees?  Is it reasonable that their medical care should depend on their employer’s religion?  It’s hard enough to find a decent job these days; will people now be required to seek employment only with employers who share their religion, in order to obtain healthcare coverage?  And why is it the employer’s business what the employee does with his or her own body, outside of the context of their job?  The adult employee is neither the child nor the slave of the employer, and is able to make his or her own moral decisions according to their own religious beliefs or lack thereof.

“full of mercy and good fruit”

Not to mention, the whole can of worms that religious exemptions to ACA would open in terms of various religions and their views on blood transfusions, organ transplants, tissue/bone grafts/ medicines derived from cows or pigs, vaccinations, or medical interventions of ANY kind, which could have a life or death impact on the insured employee  -  but this is a separate issue.

Interestingly, I don’t remember the coverage of birth control by insurance ever being an issue prior to the Obama presidency.  In the past, back when I was fortunate enough to have health insurance during the many years that I worked for both Christian and non-Christian companies, birth control was always covered like any other medication.  I don’t recall any employer, including the Christian ones, ever paying the slightest bit of attention as to the details of what was covered; they were only concerned about affordability.  No employer ever asked me if I used birth control.  It would have been an embarrassing, indeed unthinkable, invasion of privacy!  Of course, for me it’s a moot point now, because being self-employed, with a preexisting condition, I am unable to obtain any health insurance, thanks to my state governor refusing to cooperate with the ACA plan as a result of pressure by conservatives like Mr. Green.

As a business owner myself,  while I disagree with Mr. Green, I do sympathize with his concerns.  All of the above – the concerns of employers, as well as the needs of citizens, whether they be employed or unemployed – is a good argument as to why healthcare should not be dependent on the whims of our bosses, the insurance companies, or the governors of our states.  The ACA was a big step in the right direction but as written (if indeed anyone knows what it really says, as Congress admitted they didn’t actually read the whole thing) there is too much wiggle room for the working citizen to get screwed without recourse.  Hopefully this failed experiment will put us on the road to universal single-payer coverage like other civilized countries.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It appears Hobby Lobby has no objection to Viagra (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, anon004, mama jo, metalnun

    and penal implants though I am at a loss to discover Scripture covering such things.  OTOH, I have to wonder if Hobby Lobby follows the Scriptures on other business matters, such as injunctions against usury and charging interest.
    If you want to have some fun, I did a quick search on Christian business principles to see which ones they would cherry pick or if they would truly follow all of the precepts in the Scripture:
    (I would make the observation that most of them rely upon general principles which are not unique to Christianity and then find a bit of Scripture to tie the principle to the faith. However in doing this, I can find little difference between a Christian business and a Jewish business or Buddhist or Confucian business.  They all would follow the same ideals which is disappointing to me as I thought there was some unique set of laws which would set a business run on a true biblical basis apart from the business of any other observer of any other faith)  

    •  viagra (0+ / 0-)

      cannot be argued to cause abortion.

      they are okay with most birth control.  not morning after though.

      not a good comparison for hobby lobby.

      neither is the discussion of business principles.

      whether or not you agree with them, they do not want to "pay for abortions".

      not defending them, just saying.

      The Senate has no guts. The House has no brains.

      by gossamer1234 on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:59:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except as this article points out (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        entlord, metalnun

        they "believe" the morning after pill prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, when it doesn't.  That's the issue I have with this entire case.  How can you request an exception to a law based upon a falsehood?

        If you decide your religion tells you worker safety is an abomination (despite the fact that, from a reality standpoint, it saves lives and prevents illness, injury and disability), can you just say no to OSHA based upon a sincere religious belief?  If the Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, the answer would be yes.

      •  they do not wish to pay premiums to insurance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        carriers whose policies include payment for abortions, which are a medical procedure.  They are not being asked to pay for abortions.  let us be clear on that.  The canard that they object to paying for a legitimate medical procedure is a winger talking point and is incorrect.

        Wingers also object to any BC which prevents the fertilization of an egg.  I would point out the RCC opposes condoms.  Now how do condoms constitute BC except in the winger universe?

      •  but the premise is false, (0+ / 0-)

        as I have clearly explained in the article, above.  Hormonal birth control pills, including the "morning after" and "week after" do NOT, in fact, cause abortion.  So they don't have a legitimate argument.

    •  I can't wait for that case to come up [heh], (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the objection to Viagra as not complying with God's Will.

      Surely the case could be made that Viagra could be
      against someone's Religious and Moral Beliefs.

      And lo there will be such a wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  •  Dear Hobby Lobby ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anon004, mama jo, metalnun

    I don't love writing, but I love having written ~ Dorothy Parker // Visit my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

    by jan4insight on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:00:00 PM PDT

  •  And as I have seen pointed by Armando (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anon004, Shippo1776, metalnun

    Hobby-Lobby has no problem stocking the store with stuff made in China with it's 1-Child Only Laws and what has to be done to enforce them.

  •  Will someone PLEASE get these people a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shippo1776, metalnun

    science class......"Mr. Green said, “- we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception…”  He believes contraceptives might end a life, but do they?"

    The Green's may have a "right" to their beliefs, but they have no right to contradict facts and force their beliefs on anyone else.

    This is a good argument for Single Payer if there ever was one...take insurance away from Corporations!

  •  Hobby Lobby's argument bothers me on so many (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mama jo, CFAmick, metalnun

    different levels and for so many different reasons it would take several diaries to get through them all. This diary, I think, gets to the heart of it:

    They're full of shit.

    I don't care if they're being actively dishonest or if they're being manipulated by certain political interests into playing this particular victim role in their giant ongoing improv act. They're as phony as a $3 bill. Their so-called "beliefs" are fake, their butthurt over the ACA coverage requirements is fake.

    I'm sorry, but I find this kind of self-pitying fainting-couch make-believe persecuted victim act incredibly depressing. I don't believe a word of what they say. This is all an act.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site