Universally, various institutions will conduct their affairs on the foundation of the moral principle that defines them; in this case, Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby is not an exception. Wheaton College is a Protestant Christian school while Hobby Lobby, a craft store is owned by an evangelical family; hence they acquire their values from the bible teachings and the Christian faith. Also, institutions generally will put in place precepts that will guide them. Sometimes, these principles may bring controversies but we must keep in mind that they make the organization unique. Once students are admitted to an institution from Wheaton perspective, they are expected to follow the tenets, values, and guiding principle that distinguish them. Nevertheless, a million-dollar question is that whether institutions should just disregard or all the same abstain from the government rules since they are not in line with what they believe. In this paper, we are going to discuss on the ethical dilemma presented in the case of Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby concerning the obstruction of Affordable Care Act for its student/employees respectively to prevent them from adhering to the contraceptive rule.
The ethical stand that both Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby took was entirely right. The two cited the major grounds for cancellation of its student/employee’s insurance coverage is the authenticity that they disagreed with some part of the insurance policy especially the birth control (Holmes & Garand, 2018) . However, Hobby Lobby asserted that they did not oppose the entire birth control package but only the two forms; the emergency morning-after pill and two types of intrauterine device. As a Christian institution, they assert that the insurance violated their doctrine. As indicated by the canons, conceiving a child is viewed as God’s blessings (Gostin, 2014) . In actuality, the major consideration is that it is the responsibility of both a man alongside woman to produce and nurture children. The underlying Christian teaching is that children are God’s heritage thus any entity with self-absorbed motives, should not obstruct them whatsoever from coming forth into the world. Conforming to the church conventions, procreation should be understood in the context of marriage which affects the emotional and religious connection between a man and a woman. They also argue the federal government definition of who a man and woman may differ in the two contexts (West, 2016) . That was the reason enough for the college to uphold its employee’s insurance cover and Hobby Lobby to take its stand.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The moral dilemma usually trickier particularly when both parties claim that their standpoint is right. Giving a close look at Obamacare insurance cover, it necessitates that all employees not leaving out the ones holding religious convictions should acquire insurance policy containing birth control package. This is unethical as for the time the government initiated the Affordable Care Act it did not put into account the constitution (McDonnell, 2015) . Nonetheless, the Hobby Lobby and Wheaton case fall behind the court as the first amendment was disregarded. To point out the fact, the constitution gives a mandate to people to exercise freedom of religion. Therefore, individual or entities can protest against any law that contradicts their faith (Gostin, 2014) . Birth control insurance dismissal by both parties is justified as it violates the 1993 Freedom Restoration Act (McDonnell, 2015) . The set laws under this act safeguard religious freedom based on the faith of an individual. The acts articulate that “the government shall not substantially burden a person exercise of religion even if that burden results from a general rule of application except if it demonstrates that it is of government interest and is the least restrictive under the prevailing circumstance (Holmes & Garand, 2018) .” In this statement, the validation of the meaning of the interest of the government is ambiguous. After the 1990 verdict of the supreme court on employment division vs. Smith case. Under universal laws, its application with reference to ethics is that the law must be applied all the time. The government has placed into jeopardy many religious institutions where they have difficulty in complying with the directives. This decree further narrows the right of Wheaton College, Hobby Lobby and other religious institutions to exercise as well as choose what is appropriate according to them as per insurance concerns (Gostin, 2014) . As it has been noted, Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby follow the biblical perspective to run their institution. The interpretation of Wheaton’s rejection protected in the constitutional civil liberties as it is contained in the religious freedom framework (West, 2016) . The thing that the government deems as an outlaw is invalid as government interest in this scenario is unclear. The major concerns are what is the parties involved in the moral tussles do to address the dilemma they face. As the government insists that it is not going to adjust the policy whereas the Wheaton College is hoping for a self-insurance plan in the near future.
In the long run, America's constitution covers all people under this jurisdiction hence individuals do not have any option but adhere to it. Any bylaw mandates, or rules that do not act in compliance with the country’s constitution is regarded as invalid. The fact that Wheaton and Hobby Lobby is a Christian institution it derives it doctrines and guiding principles from the biblical stand. There is justification that supports the moral objectivity of the use of birth control in the Bible. Coercing religious institutions to follow other directives contrary to their faith is unethical. This further brings us to freedom of expression as well as exercising the mandate defines the groundwork of ethics that founds the United State. Having a higher regard for religious doctrines and generally accepting another people opinion is imperative.
References
Gostin, L. O. (2014). The ACA’s contraceptive mandate: religious freedom, women’s health, and corporate personhood. JAMA , 312 (8), 785-786.
Holmes, K. G., & Garand, J. C. (2018). The Clash of Rights: Explaining Attitudes toward a Religious Exemption to the HHS Contraception Mandate. PS: Political Science & Politics , 51 (2), 358-369.
McDonnell, B. H. (2015). The Liberal Case for Hobby Lobby. Ariz. L. Rev. , 57 , 777.
West, R. (2016). Hobby Lobby, birth control, and our ongoing cultural wars: pleasure and desire in the crossfires. Health Matrix , 26 , 67.
