The following blog was written by Karee Santos. Perhaps it is tongue-in-cheek. I think it’s inspiration. Hobby Lobby won their Supreme Court case. The privately-owned, Christian company is not forced to betray their conscience by providing employee “health care” that includes four contraceptives that are potential abortifacients. (Note: Irrational feminists and abortion advocates seem to overlook the fact that HL’s health care plan does include coverage of 16 contraceptives. What does this tell you?) Karee’s blog is worthy of your consideration ~
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger. The battle cry seemed to be “we want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”
“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
1. Many people want dark chocolate.
2. Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
3. Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
4. The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.
The social, medical, and economic benefits of such a scheme are clear. Politicians would be wise to start a political party based on these principles, or at least incorporate these ideas into the plank of an already-existing party platform. Not only would chocolate-for-free garner even more popular support than contraception-for-free, it would also encounter less opposition. Consider this:
1. Chocolate appeals to men, women, and children of all ages, whereas contraception would only arguably be beneficial for men and women of child-bearing age.
2. Chocolate does not contain synthetic hormones that may raise the risk of cancer and harm the environment by polluting our streams.
3. Chocolate does not cause a small but real risk of increased blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and stroke.
4. No one (as far as I know) has a religious objection to eating chocolate or providing free chocolate to others.
So I say, forget free sex. We want free chocolate. Are you with me?
Karee Santos is a happily married mother of six. She blogs in English at Can We Cana? and in Spanish at Comencemos en Caná. This article was originally published at Can We Cana?
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”
“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
- Many people want dark chocolate.
- Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
- Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
- The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.
– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf
The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”
“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:
- Many people want dark chocolate.
- Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
- Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
- The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.
– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf
Ezerwoman's Blog 
The problem has very little to do with birth control at all. The issue is that if a company can refuse to follow one government mandate based on religious views it can essentially choose to do anything it wants, despite beliefs by some justices to the contrary. This is because selecting this one particular issue without accepting others declares a judicial prejudice towards a particular type of Christianity. The options now are to admit bias or to open the situation to a free-for-all.
The chocolate analogy is inaccurate. If you believe that sex is a vice without benefit that should be discouraged you would be better off arguing that companies shouldn’t have to pay for lung cancer treatment for smokers, auto accident recovery for anyone who has been speeding or playing dangerous sports, or drug recovery.
You are correct that the problem is much deeper. The problem is that a private company, cake baker, photographer, and florist — all Christian — have recently been told that they must betray personal conscience and God Himself… or else. The whole introduction of government health care puts two worldviews at odds. While I admit that this subject is better articulated by someone other than me, one thing is certain: the decisions we make today influence generations to come. What kind of a society are we shaping?
Do you think an employer who thinks women shouldn’t work alongside men should be allowed to fire the female employees? That an employer who doesn’t believe in medical intervention should be allowed to refuse to supply any insurance? That a libertarian employer should be allowed to refuse to comply with environmental and safety regulations? That an environmentalist who believes people should only have one child should be able to refuse healthcare benefits after the first child? That a white supremacist Odinist who doesn’t want black employees (or tenants or customers) should be allowed to refuse all of these? Imagine that each of these has become the dominant cultural group in the US and holds most of the jobs. Do you still agree?