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’s right to choose abortion or to choose to give birth, as she and she alone decide — just as I believe fully in an employer’s right to choose to pay for his or her employee’s abortifacient or to choose not to according to that employers conscience and convictions. In other words, I’m anti-force. I’m anti-force because I’m pro-choice. Literally. Forcing someone to do something against his or her convictions and conscience — religious, philosophical, or otherwise — where there is no violence or threat of violence done to another is the 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 anti-choice because you’re pro-force.

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 over their employer’s conscience or beliefs or personal convictions — absolutely none. The employees here are deprived of no legitimate rights, which they all possess and are born with. Employees are at any time free to quit because they have the right to their own life — and only their own life — and 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 right at any time and for any reason to do, are also free to pursue employment elsewhere. Pursue, I repeat. They are not guaranteed a job. 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 is no right to have your birth control paid for — not by anyone, Hobby Lobby included. Birth control is not a right. 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 does the right go? Where is does the right to birth control go if you live in a remote Patagonian land and there is 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? to be had?

Of course you don’t — because no such right exists.

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

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

And a right is that which can be exercised without any other person’s consent, agreement, or permission. If it required consent, agreement, or permission — tacit or overt — it is not a right.

[Note: This post, from a my previous website, was written in and has been updated on July 4th, 2025, to clarify in full my stance on abortion rights: I’m pro-choice. Literally. Any ambiguities in my original post were the result of an unfounded assumption on my part — namely, I assumed (mistakenly, it turns out) that the absolute right to choose abortion, which I fully support and which is a right inalienable, was self-evidently not the same as the issue involved in this post: empolyees demanding the “right” to have their employers pay for employee’s abortifacients — which is most certainly not the same thing, and even more certainly not a right of any kind. Nobody has the right to the life, labor, or property of another — and money, never forget, is property. The error here was entirely mine — though in my defense, I link in the first line of the original article and the article above to another article I wrote which discusses all of this and more.