To "John Harrison" you are wrong. Hobby Lobby is not restricting the
choices of their employees. The employees are still free to go an purchase the
abortion inducing drugs as they please.However, the Greens are the
ones that are losing their choice and are being forced to do something that they
believe is contrary to the Gospel.You are the one cheering on
Satan's plan of force as the Greens are being forced to pay for drugs that
If I remember correctly, Satan's plan was to remove choice and thus ensure
that everyone conformed to his expectations. While we as LDS regularly mock
this plan we find ourselves cheering its implementation here on Earth all too
often.Hobby Lobby is convinced of its own righteousness and wants to
restrict the choices of its employees that might believe differently. The fact
than an LDS owned media outlet would publish articles praising this behavior
proves just how enticing Satan's plan can be.On top of that,
the doublespeak of the headline would make Orwell jealous.
Question: Does the New York Times, a corporation, have the right to freedom of
the press? Or can the government muzzle them because they are a corporation?
How about the Deseret News? Can the Times or the Des News issue an editorial?
Should they be allowed to do so? Should the Times be allowed to propagandize in
favor of Obama? They are a corporation and have no 1st Amendment rights,
correct? If you think that the New York Times or the Washington Post
can exercise the freedoms of the press, a 1st amendment freedom, then why
can't Hobby Lobby exert their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
If corporations have the freedom of speech, and of the press--and no one would,
I hope, disagree with that--then why not freedom of worship?
To "RanchHand" what, you couldn't handle the argument so you have
to change it? You were arguing that the Greens were not the same as their
business, but they are. (Yes they are financially liable for their
business).Their business is no different than your vehicle. You own
it, and you are responsible for it.Again, what would you do if the
government told you that you had to buy products from the "Americans for
Truth About Homosexuality" and keep them visible inside of your vehicle.
Would you just comply or would you fight against it?Do you believe
that the government should have the right to force you to buy products that go
against YOUR beliefs? Would you fight the government if they told you to by
products from "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality"?
@RedShirt;Was Hobby Lobby born from a womb? No? Then it isn't
the Greens. It is a corporation, not a person. It has no beliefs to violate.
To "RanchHand" yes, the Greens are the same as their business. They own
the business. It is not like Apple that is owned by thousands of
shareholders.Imagine if the government told you that you had to buy
products from the "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality" and keep
them visible inside of your vehicle. Would you just comply or would you fight
against it?That is what is going on with the Greens. They are being
forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.The
owner of HL is a person, and as an owner has property rights to control what is
done with is property. You may disagree with his beliefs, but that does not
give you the right to force him to do something that goes against his beliefs.
@RedShirt:"Why is it wrong for the Greens to impose their
religious views on their employees, but it is ok for you to impose your views on
the Greens?"What you're essentially saying is that the
corporation is the Greens and the Greens are the corporation. If that's
the case, then the Greens should be held liable for every liability of the
corporation and vice-versa.HL is not a person. Until the State
actually executes a corporation for it's crimes, it is not a person.
To "Marxist" you make no sense. You are saying that you would give away
your golf clubs if it helped get your garden grow better. Getting rid of a
grandchild to get your daughter out of a bad marriage makes no sense. You
forget that your daughter likes being promiscuous, and doesn't believe in
protection. She got pregnant because of her own choices. What would you do if
she wanted to get rid of your grandchild because she doesn't want stretch
marks? Nothing more than a superficial reason.As for a rape victim,
why should Hobby Lobby have to cover drugs that are already included in the rape
kits that hospitals have? The rape kits are paid for by the state, so why
should Hobby Lobby have to pay for something that is already covered?Why is it wrong for the Greens to impose their religious views on their
employees, but it is ok for you to impose your views on the Greens?
Sarah, no matter how you slice it, corporations are not people, do not have
religion nor worship. Until Hobby Lobby sits in the pews on Sunday, it
isn't religious and has no need for "religious freedom".
@RedshirtMIT "To "Marxist" but hobby lobby is not discontinuing
coverage for contraceptives. They are discontinuing coverage for drugs used to
abort babies. Would you pay for your daughter to abort your grandchild?"Hobby Lobby is discontinuing coverage for IUD's and two types of
"morning after" pills. I'm not certain how IUD's work, but my
wife who has worked in emergency rooms says the morning after pills bring on a
menstrual period and flush out a woman's reproductive track. Such is
necessary in cases of rape which she dealt with (I guess you would oppose such
uses in cases of rape?). So the morning after pill may be a kind of abortion,
but what is being aborted is not a "baby." Many such fertilized eggs
never "take" on their own.You asked me if I would pay for my
daughter to abort. I have no problem with morning after pills and I would pay
for an abortion if it helped her get out of an abusive marriage. Many women
face just that issue.Lastly, Hobby Lobby has no right to impose
their religious views on their employees period.
To accept that the medications in question induce abortions means that we must
accept that life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized. If this is so, then
would miscarriages not be an act of murder? Or at the very least
manslaughter?Plus, now the the majority shareholder and the
corporation are really the same person, there's no real argument as to why
the shareholder cannot be held legally and criminally responsible for the
actions and debts of the corporation.
Since Hobby Lobby is objecting to abortificents, this ruling doesn't
involve the bedroom. Aborted fetuses are disposed of elsewhere.
To "Marxist" but hobby lobby is not discontinuing coverage for
contraceptives. They are discontinuing coverage for drugs used to abort babies.
Would you pay for your daughter to abort your grandchild?To
"LOU Montana" but Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for 16 different types
of birth control. So, it isn't really strange at all. Plus, how many
babies are killed when a person has a vasectomy or a hysterectomy?
It won't be long before we're divided in the workplace too I guess.
Fudamentalists at places like Hobby Lobby and Chickfila. That's
just how my friend describes his home country of SUDAN. He says if you
aren't a Muslim with a long beard and a bruise on your forehead from
praying, you can't get a job anywhere.Profit from division,
that's what they are doing.
@ Mike Richards.... you say "If we use LDS Liberal's argument that the
14th Amendment was a decree and not an amendment to the Constitution, then
we're in deep trouble."No - we are in trouble if anyone
thinks the 14th amendment has anything to do with the emancipation declaration.
And yes, the 13th amendment was an attempt to fix a decree. Under the war
powers act, the US had the right to take enemy property - to liberate it. The
issue is that under the terms of the Civil War, Lincoln never recognized the
legitimacy of the confederacy, did not view them as a sovereign state, and that
the inhabitants of the south were truly still US Citizens. Where
the emancipation proclamation runs into constitutional issues is with
southerners still being citizens, property could not be taken without due
process. Lincoln understood this and knew the proclamation was on shaky ground
to he pushed hard for the 13th amendment to make the constitutionality of the
proclamation moot.Trying to say the emancipation proclamation was
not an executive order - but a precursor to the 13th.... that is a real stretch.
The 14th does have everything to with abortion rights arguments.
If it is improper to ask a business to share the cost of all health care for
their employees without discrimination, why isn't it improper to force me
to pay for part of the cost of their religion?Contribution that
Hobby Lobby makes to the church of their religion is tax deductable which causes
my taxes to be higher. Government should be fair to all people in the cost of
@VST 7:37 p.m. July 13, 2014@Furry1993 said, “Life begins when
the spirit and body join, according to the requirements for sealing established
by the LDS Church.”If you are implying that the Church says a
still-born child can be sealed to the Parents in the Temple, then you are wrong
– that is not Church policy/doctrine. You referenced the word
“sealing.” Furthermore, the Church has no official position on the
moment that human life begins.-----------------------quite the contrary. I have discussed the issue with the LDS Church department
handling sealings. I was told that the sealing ordinances are performed only
for people who have lived and that stillborns and miscarried fetuses are not
eligible for sealing because they never lived. (A birth and at least one breath
taken thereafter is necessary for a person to be considered to have lived --
miscarried fetuses have not lived because they haven't been born or taken a
breath; a stillbolrn is not considered to have lived because even though there
was a birth, no breath was taken).
@Mountanman: Comparing birth control pills with medical procedures is
ridiculous! Ridiculous? Many expensive to treat conditions are
caused by lifestyle and diet choices. Birth control medications are about
regulating hormones to have control over fertility and pregnancy and to treat
other conditions. Well over 90% of women alive today have needed birth control
at some point in their life, well over half of all women 15-44 are using birth
control at any given time, and some 70% of married women use it. To
claim that it is not an essential part of women's health care and treatment
is like claiming an oil change is not an essential part of car care. None of these medications or treatments cause abortion - all four block
fertilization of the egg.Take a survey of random women in a variety
of settings - ask them if birth control is medical treatment or not. You will be
educated.@Mel50: I feel you, I am currently without Rx
coverage. My metformin is only $4, my wonderful pharmacist has worked hard to
find and use discounts and coupons for anther Rx I get.
Stormwalker - I DO pay for my own insulin. Once obamacare went into effect, I
lost my Rx coverage.
If it is such a great crime to ask a business to share the cost of all health
care for their employees without discrimination, why is it not a crime to force
me to pay for part of the cost of their religion?Every contribution
that Hobby Lobby makes to the church of their religion is tax deductible which
causes my taxes to be higher. Government should be fair to all people in the
cost of government.
Interesting that they will pay for a vasectomy and a hysterectomy but they will
not pay for birth control. How strange!
I appreciate the forum that the Deseret News provides for us all to air our
opinions. If we are wise, we will think about the opinions of others before we
jump to conclusions. We will think about the value of life. We will weigh the
fact that we are living, breathing human beings against the lives that are
invited by having sex. We will carefully consider the fact that having sex is
an invitation to generate another living person who, I think, has the right to
expect the Government of the United States to protect it at least as much as the
Government of the United States protects the most despicable felon living on
death row. Those felons receive a trial to prove that they deserve to be put to
death. They are afforded lawyers who defend them, at public expense. They are
allowed to appeal their sentence.What protections are in place for
the unborn? If a woman decides that she does not want that baby, she can
destroy it without citing the reason.Enough is enough. As a
business owner, I will not pay for abortifacients.
@ Stormwalker. Comparing birth control pills with medical procedures is
ridiculous! In case no one ever explained it to you, one is about killing unborn
or keeping them from being born and the rest is keeping people who were lucky
enough to be born ALIVE and healthy! Don't be silly! And by the way, I have
never tried to force my neighbors to pay for my medical expenses! Never have,
What is Orwellian is reading about all those who hate liberty so much, and I am
sure don't even understand what liberty means, that they are willing, with
great fervor, to give it up to big brother without even knowing what they have
done. If SCOTUS says it, it must be so; if Obama, or Bush, or a bureaucrat says
it, then raise your hand and support it! If the SCOTUS were to say stampede off
a cliff, most of the people writing here would lead the parade! How is it
possible that anyone in the 21st century, with access to unlimited resources and
information, could talk like this defies logic, as if they never knew what
liberty and freedom ever meant! Your allegiance to a cess pool of power in
Washington is not flattering. Why would anyone want to debate an issue with
those who have taken an oath to the state as the supreme unquestioned ruler?
@Mountanman: "If you want birth control, BUY YOUR OWN! Problem
solved!"If you want a blood transfusion, buy your own.If you want blood pressure medication, buy your own.If you want
heart surgery, buy your own.If you hip replacement, buy your own.If you want insulin, buy your own. An argument can be
constructed against any of the above - the first on firmly established religious
grounds, the next four on a sincere belief in a vegetarian diet and healthy
lifestyle. Why should your employer have to pay for your lifestyle choices?
Look at how many people are in favor of having the government give people
rights. They seem to forget that our Creator gave us all rights, including the
right to be free from an oppressive government that tells us that we must
abandon all religion if we want to do business in the United States. Those
people are demanding that the 1st Amendment be struck down. Do they know that
the 1st Amendment not only protects religions from legislation from government,
that it protects the individual from government intervention, but that it also
protects us from the government dictating what we can say without permission
from the government. In their haste to make us pay for their abortifacients,
they are willing to sacrifice their right to demand that we pay for those
abortifacients.If people thought about the unique opportunity that
we have to be free from decrees from a President, they would demand that Obama
stop his nonsense. They would demand that the press print the truth about our
right to freely live our religion. They would demand that everybody stop
demanding that others pay for their personal welfare.
@mountain manemployees are buying their own through their labor that
earns them insurance which they also pay a premium on. this is not a gift from
the business owners this is the employees earned income.
So by limiting what options someone has under the health insurance they earn
business is getting out of the bedroom and Liberals are forcing their way into
the bedroom by arguing that peoples options should not be limited? Once again
this author seems to have cause and effect a little mixed up.
It's funny how the feminists continually cry to "keep your laws and
religion out of my bedroom and my womb... until I want you to pay for my birth
control and abortion". There is not a single method of birth control that
was legal before this ruling, that is not still legal today. The only difference
is who pays for it. Not your boss's business? Then don't expect him to
pay for it.
The day after pill isn't some abortion pill!How bizarre it is
to read several posts describe it that way. Do you folks even know what
you're talking about? Or are you merely writing in anger towards
@VST 11:45 a.m. July 13, 2014“Why doesn't hobby lobby
focus on hiring people who share its values…”How about
alternative: Why not those, who do not share the Hobby Lobby values, choose to
become employed elsewhere?-----------------Because,
especially if they are receiving State benefits (including unemployment) they
are required to accept whatever job comes along, even if the conditions of
employment (including but not limited to benefits) are substandard. Are you
willing to allow a person to continue receiving benefits if they turn down a job
which, like a Hobby Lobby job, would come with incompetent, substandard
insurance that doesn't even provide coverage for all basic preventative
@Igualmente 11:47 a.m. July 13, 2014Sorry. Your statement is not
correct. None of the prooduts at issue -- IUD or mediations -- are
abortifacients. All they do is keep pregnancies from starting. That
doesn't kill anything. Life begins when the spirit an body join, according
to the requirements for sealing established by the LDS Church.I see
where you're trying to go. So, let's talk about what happens in
nature. Between a third an a half of all fertilized eggs never implants in the
uterus an therefore never starts a pregnancy. Of the pregnancies that actually
start, between a quarter and a third self-terminate in the first trimester.
Even more self-terminate in the second and third trimesters, and at birth.
Using your argument -- Mother Nature is quite a killer, isn't she?
If we use LDS Liberal's argument that the 14th Amendment was a decree and
not an amendment to the Constitution, then we're in deep trouble. The
Emancipation Proclaimation was made law by that amendment. It was presented to
the States and the States ratified it. Can Obama "decree"
that you and I have to pay for abortions? Obama believes in abortions, even
when the child could survive birth. As a state senator in Illinois, he picked
the side that said that that newly born children could receive no medical care
if it survived an attempted abortion. How draconian can we get? Those who don't want Hobby Lobby in their bedrooms are perfectly
satisfied with having government in their bedrooms.Why can't
the liberals understand that we are protected from a President who rules by
decree, that the federal government has no authority to be in our bedrooms, that
any duty not ENUMERATED in the Constitution is to be left to the States or to
the People? Why is that concept so hard for Obama to understand and for
liberals to understand? Why do they so easily give away their freedoms?
Mike Richards,"Since when can the President 'decree'
anything?"Executive orders enacted by Ronald Reagan: 381Orders enacted by George W. Bush: 291Orders enacted by Barack Obama:
182I'm guessing that the first two didn't bother you
This letter is bizarre, almost Orwellian as it turns the truth on its head.
Giving women a choice does not limit their freedom; taking choice away DOES
limit their freedom. Not vice versa. Not. Not. Not.
"The bill would force families . . . . American employers to provide
coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and devices, contraception and sterilization
— regardless of religious objection."GOOD.Religious zealots should obey the law just like everyone else, don't you
think? Corporations, even those run by religious zealots, have no
business at all sticking their noses into the private lives of their employees,
especially in relation to health care.That's not the American
way . . . In spite of the recent Supreme Court Decision that bastardized the
long-honored and very American principle of the separation of church and state.
If you want birth control, BUY YOUR OWN! Problem solved!
A visit to the website of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
reveals the friend-of-the-court brief they filed in this case.The
problem is that none of the four drugs at the center of the case actually cause
an abortion. Two drugs either delay or interrupt ovulation - there is no egg to
be fertilized. Extensive research shows that if the egg is fertilized and the
either drug is taken the embryo still implants normally. One of the
IUDs functions to increase and thicken cervical mucus, so it is impenetrable by
sperm, again making fertilization impossible. The second IUD is copper, it
releases copper ions that are toxic to sperm, again making fertilization of the
egg impossible. The SCOTUS decision was not based on the actual
effect of these drugs. It was based on the Green families religious belief about
what these drugs do. And, like every other religious belief, it is wrong. The Hobby Lobby decision was a major step back into the dark ages, where
misinformed religious belief about science trumps actual science.
The Hobby Lobby ruling is NOT restricting contraceptives. It restricts
abortifacients, the after conception drugs that are used after the
'choice' is made. So, in effect, the healthcare for all, that is
promoted by Obamacare, is now even more inclusive. The right to choose ends
where life begins.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahNo person in America has the
right to demand that her employer pay for her abortion. If she wants an
abortion, she can buy those pills herself. ======= What
about those of us - including the LDS Church - who feel Rape, Incest and
Life and Health of the woman would justify it?BTW -- Viagra and
other ED promoting pills are covered.So, why won't you say "if a
man wants to enhance performance, he can buy those pills himself."?Double standard?
Hobby Lobby and any other business can run their business any way they want so
long as it is not in America and it doesn't involve Americans as consumers
and Americans as employees. Business operations in America do so
only with the permission of the government(s) that apply to the location. That
permission is granted only to those business operations that agree to the
specifications made and enforced by government. There are no Constitutional
rights or privileges, even for churches, for business operations. Consumers and employees are both protected classes of people. Their health,
welfare, safety and personal being are prime functions of our government. While
extreme latitude is allowed to business operations, they are not wanted to use
their economic power to influence people. It is our leaders duty and
responsibility to maintain that protection.
If a civilized society is what is supported by the Democrats, Republicans, or
Marxists, it is easy to see why there are so many independent minded people that
don't want anything other than what the Constitution allows. if Marxists,
Democrats, or Republicans don't understand what that is, then for people
like me, I am quite content and happy to support any citizen or politician that
wants to end any government program. If they want to end it, I am for it! It
doesn't matter what it is because anything would be better than what we
have! No need to debate; no need to wonder! Consistency is a virtue that even
the simplest man will respond. Gridlock is wonderful, but ending any
possibility for future government programs is even better!
@Mike RichardsWhat is the definition of abortion? It's the
termination of pregnancy, right? According to the National Institutes of Health
and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, pregnancy does not
occur unless implantation occurs. The morning after pill most typically
prevents ovulation. In some cases a morning after pill can prevent implantation
of an egg, but pregnancy has not occurred still. Two of the IUDs that Hobby
Lobby protests do not even prevent implantation. The copper one can, but
that's only if placed after intercourse. Once again, not abortion.That being said, this issue goes beyond the Hobby Lobby case. There are
about 100 other companies who are now claiming they deserve religious immunity
as well and some want to deny coverage of ANY contraceptive, not just ones they
believe are "abortifacients" despite the fact that some women use
contraceptives for other legitimate medical needs other than preventing
pregnancy. What this bill is trying to do is remove religious
immunity from health care concerns because it is of no concern to the employer
how their employee uses their benefits. It's sad when we give a company
more consideration and rights than a real human being.
This entire issue is a joke. Hobby Lobhy has chosen to operate as a corporation
and have the tax advantages associated with being a corporation. Now they want
individual religious rights aside from the corporation. Disavow the corporate
structure and operate as a wholly owned noncorporate entity. File your business
tax return on a Schedule C on the 1040 form and get no benefit from LLC
structure such as immunity from lawsuits, protection of personal assets etc. If
you want to be a family owned business and be a family owned business.
Corporations are entities, not people. You can set up your financial affair in
any manner of your choosing but there are often unintended consequences with
those decisions. Don't get all the advantages of a corporation and then
beg to be treated like a person with individual religious liberty.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahIn America we believe in
"due process". An unborn child has the right to "due process".
Killing that unborn child is allowed under Roe v Wade, but Roe v Wade does not
require the employer to pay for the abortion. Many of us do not condone
abortion. Many of us detest abortion. Since when can the President
"decree" anything?8:29 a.m. July 13, 2014======== ...and many of you would not allow it - even for
Rape, Incest, or Life or Health of the Woman.AND That is why I do
not agree with you.btw -- Abraham Lincoln freed the Slaves by
I suppose if Hobby Lobby advertised for employees who agree with them the left
would go out of their minds. They already provide 16 birth control methods
to their employees (and BTW, they pay double minimum wage). Seems to me you
might want to plan ahead.
Sarah Torre is the policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil
Society at The Heritage Foundation. She focuses on policy issues related to
religious liberty, marriage and family.======== No
political motive, No agenda, No Lobbying, Why does the
Deseret News consistently offer such a one-sided, lop-sided, biased, sounding
board for all things conservative?In 8th grade - I was taught ALL
Journalism required an opposing view point.Propaganda did not.So Deseret News -- Where is that line between "journalism" and
"propaganda"?20 to 140 to 1?
An IUD is not an abortifacient. And some women are medically unable to use
other forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby's owners are not being asked to
personally perform abortions. They're merely being asked to fully provide
all FDA approved medications. The decision of which one she should use should be
made by her, in consultation with her doctors. Her employer has no appropriate
role to play in her medical decisions.
@Marxist. I agree. Women are adults, not children. They can pay for the things
they want themselves.
Dumb question. There is such a thing as antibiotic resistant gonorrhea. If you
get it then you can't be cured.By emphasizing contraceptives
and not talking about condoms, then people will assume that with contraception
they are safe.If someone has to take a 'morning after
pill' because they made a mistake with their boyfriend, (a married couple
wouldn't make that kind of a mistake) then they are engaging in risky
behavior. Contraceptives isn't going to help them.
Instead of letting just a few 'people', which is to say the personhood
of corporations, provide us with health care, why not make it the responsibility
of all of us. After all, the only individuals that actually will never need
health care are corporations. In spite of court rulings to the contrary,
they're really not actually people.
There is a logical conundrum in this article. The main contention is that
Obamacare restricts people's access to healthcare because it decides the
minimum amount of coverage people must have. What it fails to mention is that
employers are free to add whatever they like beyond the minimum. In the case of
Hobby Lobby, that corporation didn't want to implement a portion of the
minimum requirement, yet according to this article, that is expanding one's
healthcare options, not constricting it. Go figure! I'm still scratching
my head over that twisted logical fallacy.
Some people are still promoting the lies being told by Harry Reid and the Obama
administration about the Hobby Lobby case. Some people believe those lies.
Some people believe that a woman cannot buy abortifacients herself. Some people
believe that she can only get those abortifacients if her employer pays for
them.The truth is that abortifacients cause abortions. No person in
America has the right to demand that her employer pay for her abortion. If she
wants an abortion, she can buy those pills herself. In America we
believe in "due process". An unborn child has the right to "due
process". Killing that unborn child is allowed under Roe v Wade, but Roe v
Wade does not require the employer to pay for the abortion. Many of us do not
condone abortion. Many of us detest abortion. Obama has decreed
that all employers must pay for abortions. Since when can the President
I find it rather amusing that by providing choice - one is accused of limiting
ones freedoms. Just because an employer, or even the government provides birth
control services, does not mean anyone HAS to avail themselves of them. Just
as if I go to an eating establishment that serves alcohol - I am not compelled
to partake. And if no one at that venue partakes, then the average cost for
that venue will also go down.Why doesn't hobby lobby focus on
hiring people who share its values - and therefor makes the entire proposition
moot. Choice is not restricter of freedom. One can support peoples right to
choose - right and wrong - without partaking in those individual decisions
Great article. Liberals want government out of THEIR bedrooms, not yours!
The government can easily provide any types of contraceptives that women want.
There is no justification to force religious companies to kill the unborn.
I might also add that the conferring of personhood on Hobby Lobby is an
excellent example of Marx's "fetishism of commodities," whereby we
treat people like things, and things like people.The only real
people are people - men, women, and children. Corporations, businesses,
religions, trade groups, chambers of commerce etc are not people. Only people
have rights. Women as people have rights. They are not commodities. They are
The simple fact remains that contraceptives are a major part of women's
health care - and in the reproductive years a dominant part. Restrictions and
exceptions as required by Hobby Lobby and others will make it harder for women
to get needed care. This is particularly true for women making the despicably
low American minimum wage. An IUD requires intervention by a doctor the expense
of which will likely be out of reach for many women if they have to obtain such
outside of their employer provided insurance.Women are adults, they
are not children or property.