Pro-Pregnancy?

The debate over the Hobby Lobby thing hasn't much abated, even though the Supreme Court decision is already on the books. Just the other day a coworker was complaining to me about it. "I don't think a corporation should be allowed to have their religious beliefs affect their business." (Whatever you do, do not think about that statement because if you do, it will become a staggering concept.)

The loudest response to the whole thing was ridicule over the Hobby Lobby position. President Steve Green argued that allowing four contraceptives -- Plan B, Ella, and two particular IUDs -- would mandate that Hobby Lobby become abortion providers. And that was not a possibility. And the medical world exploded. "These things don't cause abortions!" they thundered. "They merely prevent pregnancy." And the perception, thanks largely to the media and to misinformation, became that Hobby Lobby (and others like them) were, in essence, pro-pregnancy. Not true, of course, but that was the sense of it.

Where does this confusion come from? Well, as it turns out, it comes precisely from the same place that many of the problems I highlight come from -- a failure to communicate. This side says "love" and that side says "love" and they're not using the same concept. This side defends "marriage" and that side defends "marriage" and the two ideas are not the same. I'm a Christian and he's a Christian and we are not of the same religion. In this case at hand, these are contraceptives, not abortifacients, because "they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies."

"Established pregnancies"? Yes, well, you see, it appears that "pregnant" is a variable term. In the Journal of the American Medical Association the term "pregnancy" is defined in terms of gestational periods and does not begin until implantation occurs. Prior to implantation of the fertilized egg, it is not an "established pregnancy". (It is, by implication, a pregnancy ... just not established.) On the other hand, most U.S. doctors believe pregnancy starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Go figure. So, while the rest of us wrestle over "What is marriage?" and "What is male or female?" and "What is Christian?" and "What is this thing called love?", they're trying to figure out "Just what is 'pregnant'?" And now you see the problem.

If "pregnant" means "an implanted egg" and the method in question simply prevents implantation, then it is not a termination of a pregnancy. True ... which is why we are not "pro-pregnancy" and why we aren't protesting "contraceptives" and why the whole world seems to be completely confused here.

The owners of Hobby Lobby -- all genuine Christians, in fact -- are pro-life. We aren't interested in defending pregnancy. That may be a Catholic concern, but not that of the Steve Green or the pro-life crowd. The question is not "When does pregnancy occur?" but "When does life occur?" and all that science and logic and Scripture tells us is that it occurs when the egg is fertilized. So when the FDA says that Plan B "works mainly by preventing ovulation", that's not an issue, and when it says, "It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg", that, too, isn't a problem for the pro-life view. But when the FDA says that it may prevent "attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus", we've just stepped into a pro-life question. You see, if we can define "abortion" as "the termination of a pregnancy" and "abortifacient" as "that which causes an abortion", we've bypassed the whole problem, right? Wrong.

This is why Hobby Lobby protested the four methods they protested. This has been the issue all along. Is it the right of the government to force the owners of a closely-held company to violate their religious principles and pay for murdering children? That is the question.

"But," I've already heard, "Plan B does not do that. It's an outdated warning. Plan B doesn't do that!" And, if that's true, I'm pretty sure that Hobby Lobby would be happy to return Plan B to the list. Of course, the other three will still remain on the list of "abortifacients". The claim is that they "prevent pregnancy" and, therefore, are not abortifacients, but this demands first that your position is pro-pregnancy, not pro-life. Because while it is true that they prevent pregnancy when pregnancy is defined as implantation, it is undeniable that Ella, the copper IUD, and the hormonal IUD do as a matter of course prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. "That's not an abortion," the medical community will tell us and you're free to go with that if you're of the opinion that "pregnant" means "implanted embryo" and "abortion" means "the termination of that implanted embryo". Of course, if you're pro-life, none of that matters, does it? A life is a life. But, I suppose, that term is up for debate as well.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons that I am not "anti-abortion". "Abortion" just obscures the issue. Life is the issue.

Just something to consider when you're listening to the debates about Hobby Lobby, religious freedom, and what constitutes an abortion.

Postscript:
I'd like you to keep in mind that there is an underlying concept in these complaints against Hobby Lobby and the entire question. The debate, you see, is largely on, "That's not abortion!" Do you understand what that means? That means that in their view you are only free to exercise your religious beliefs as long as they agree with your principles. "We've examined your position, found it wanting, and do not wish to allow you that freedom." That's where it is. You see, on the basis of the First Amendment, if Hobby Lobby's owners were Catholics opposed to all contraception as a matter of morality -- that requiring them to pay for it would be a sin for them -- then the question of whether or not it is a good position to take is irrelevant. The question is are they going to be allowed their First Amendment rights? The loudest view today in this country is "You can have your First Amendment rights ... pending our approval on the beliefs you'd like to follow." Now, that's a bit more difficult to handle.