For anyone who, like me, believes an employer should not be forced to pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient, see what you’re up against (i.e. not much):

I am, for the record, pro-choice in the literal sense — which means: I believe fully in the pregnant woman’s right to choose abortion or to choose to give birth, as she and she alone decides — it’s her choice — just as with exactly equal conviction I believe fully in an employer’s right to choose to pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient or to choose not to pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient, according to that employer’s personal convictions and decision.

In other words, I’m anti anti-choice.

In other words, I’m anti-force.

In other words, I’m anti anti-choice and I’m anti-force because I’m pro-choice. Literally.

Forcing someone to do something against his or her wishes, beliefs, or convictions — religious, philosophical, mathematical, or anything else — where within those convictions there’s no violence or threat of violence done to another is the absolute antonym of choice.

If you believe Hobby Lobby should be forced to fund any kind of birth control, you’re by definition not pro-choice. You’re pro-force. By definition. You’re anti-choice because you’re pro-force. Literally.

Or to put all that another way:

Employees do not work for an employer by right but by contractual agreement. Employees therefore have no right whatsoever over their employer’s conscience or beliefs or personal convictions — absolutely none. Just as — and for precisely the same reasons — employers have no right whatsoever over their employee’s conscience or beliefs or personal convictions. This is very basic.

The employees of Hobby Lobby are deprived of no legitimate rights, which they all possess and are born with, when their employer doesn’t pay for their abortifacients.  Employees are at any time free to purchase their own abortifacients. Employees are likewise at any time free to leave Hobby Lobby. Employees have the right to their own life — and only their own life — which entails their own money and other property. Employees do not have rightful claim to Hobby Lobby’s money or other property.

A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission, consent, or say-so.

Employees who for any reason choose to leave a workplace — which is their absolute, inalienable right to do, at any time and for any reason and for no reason — are also free to pursue employment elsewhere.

Pursue, I repeat.

They are not guaranteed work. No one is.

Employment is arrived at not by right but by voluntary, consensual agreement, wherein in both parties are free to choose to associate and work together or not.

There’s no such thing as the right to birth control.

There’s no right to have your birth-control paid for by the employer or the state — not by anyone, Hobby Lobby included.

Abortifacients are not a right.

If abortifacients were a right, ask yourself: where does that right go if there’s no abortifacients available, none even conceived — if no one has discovered the technology to make them, and if no one has invested the money into producing and mass manufacturing them? Where? Where, then, does the right go?

Where does the right to birth control go if you live in a remote Patagonian land and there’s no birth control to be had — none for thousands of miles? Do you then have the right to demand others travel those thousand miles and bring to you the birth control you have a right to?

You do not: because no such rights exists. By definition. By virtue of what rights are.

Such things are arrived at not by right but by voluntary, consensual exchange.

There’s no type of freedom other than the type which voluntary exchange brings about.

A right is that which can be exercised without any other person’s consent, agreement, or permission.

If it requires the consent, agreement, or permission of another, it’s by definition not a right.

[Note: This post, from a previously published article, was updated on July 4th, 2025. I’ve gone through the considerable effort of doing this for one reason: full clarity on my stance regarding abortion rights: I’m pro-choice. Literally. Any ambiguities in my original post, which having just reread it is in my opinion unambiguous, resulted from an unfounded assumption: namely, I assumed that readers weren’t quite so up-to-the-gills in present-day political dogmas and thought-terminating cliches as to equate the absolute right to choose abortion, which I fully support and which is a right inalienable, with employees-have-an-absolute-right-to-have-their-birth-control-paid-for-by-employers-or-someone-else, which is outrageously out-of-whack with reality and any conceivable definition and understanding of rights.

My bad for assuming readers would understand that the absolute and inalienable right to choose abortion or not choose abortion — which is what my convictions actually are since I’m pro-choice (literally) — isn’t self-evidently the same thing as the issue involved in this post: empolyees demanding the “right” to have their employers pay for the employee’s abortifacients — which is most certainly not the same thing and most certainly not a right at all, not of any kind.

Nobody has the right to the life, labor, or property of another — and money, never forget, is property.