The Concept of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

When the freedom of conscience of an individual comes into conflict with the freedom of conscience of an organization where the public has a stake, the conscience of the organization must succumb. Further, even when the conscience of the organization is allowed to stand if the organization happens to be an employer, it cannot and should not be allowed control over the conscience of the employees. The issue of reproductive health in general and particularly that of abortion and birth control is a matter of conscience (World Health Organization, 2015) . Some individuals based on culture, religion or belief consider it wrong to procure an abortion or conduct active forms of birth control. Others believe that a woman should have absolute right to decide what happens to her body and should not be held captive by a biological process that is gender discriminative (Hogue & Hogue, 2014). The right to believe in one of the above is well established in the first amendment. Therefore, when an organization tries to abuse a system so as to limit the freedom of conscience on the matter of reproductive health upon its employees or wards, then the organization is engaging in unconstitutional action. 

The concept of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” may have been vilified for not being liberal enough but it was based on a very sound ideology. This was the ideology that as long as what an employee believes in does not affect the employer, then the employee should be allowed to hold on to that belief. The same thing applies to the relationship between an organization and its adult wards such as college students. The US armed forces for instance at one time believed that being gay was wrong. However, it elected to respect the right of its members to believe in being gay as well as practice it, as long as it did not become an issue at the workplace . This same concept should apply to organizations such as Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College. The two organizations should be allowed to believe anything they prefer about reproductive health. However, they should also allow their members of staff to believe anything they want about the same subject. Whatever happens between the employee and the medical professional ought not to be an interest to the employer at all (Hogue & Hogue, 2014). The instant scenario is premised on an employer who seeks to force its non-work related belief to its employees which is wrong. 

Further, the reproductive health issue as argued by Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College amounts to gender discrimination. Gender discrimination in this regard relates to a situation where a man and a woman perform a similar act but the same had ramifications for the woman, but not for the man (Hill, 2016). Whereas there are many forms of sexual relations, the only one that creates reproductive health issues is between a man and a woman. The main argument raised by Wheaton College relates to the use of what is dubbed as emergency pills, used to prevent conception after sex. Whereas both the man and the woman are involved, it is only the woman who has to grapple with conception issues. Indeed, the man can forget all about it and move on with his life but this luxury is not available for the woman. If she conceives, that moment will be the first day of the rest of her life and create exponential life-long obligations (Hill, 2016). This is over and above complications relating to gestation and the potential fatal experience of delivery. The emergency pill may not even the odd but it goes a long way in helping the woman escape this eventuality. Rising against emergency pills and other reproductive health measures is, therefore, an act of gender discrimination that should be vehemently condemned. 

Finally, the conscience of a community ought to be the subtotal of the consciences of the members of that community (Hartmann et al, 2016). Wheaton College may have an Evangelical Christian background which is all well, but it has not made it a condition of joining the college that students must have a certain set of beliefs so as to join. Similarly, Hobby Lobby Stores may have a management or even a proprietorship that holds certain beliefs but it does not make it a condition for its customers or members of staff to hold such beliefs. Wheaton, therefore, wants to collect the tuition fees without reference to conscience but later remember it is against abortion and kindred issues when it comes to health insurance. Hobby Lobby similarly wants to make money from all kinds of Americans and also higher talent from all manner of Americans but remember their conscience only when it comes to health insurance. This is selective amnesia and also extreme hypocrisy. If the two organizations do not want anything to do with people reproductive health issues that lean towards abortion, let them make it a condition of earning not just a condition of spending. The inverse is definitely an act of hypocrisy and cannot stand as an issue of conscience as conscience is absolute (Hartmann et al, 2016). 

The upshot of the foregoing is that the acts and omission of Wheaton College, as well as Hobby Lobby Stores in opposing insurance because of reproductive health cannot stand. The students of Wheaton are in that institution because they have paid high sums of money. The organization cannot ignore its conscience regarding the subject when collecting their tuition and then remember it selectively. This can only be termed as hypocrisy. Further, objective to reproductive health is an act of gender discrimination since it gives the man privileges in social relationships that a woman cannot enjoy. Finally, issues of conscience are protected by the first amendment of the constitution. They are also privileged and no one should be forced to disclose them. The path being taken by the two organization is, therefore, untenable. 

References 

Hartmann, M., Khosla, R., Krishnan, S., George, A., Gruskin, S., & Amin, A. (2016). How are gender equality and human rights interventions included in sexual and reproductive health programmes and policies: a systematic review of existing research foci and gaps.  PloS one ,  11 (12), e0167542 

Hill, B. J. (2016). The First Amendment and the politics of reproductive health care Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 50(103) 

Hogue, L., & Hogue, C. (2014). Anthony Comstock: A religious fundamentalist's negative impact on reproductive health. Georgia State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No . 2014-34 

World Health Organization. (2015).  Sexual health, human rights and the law . World Health Organization