Progressive Capitalists and Sacred Cows

What priorities lie behind abortion-supporting companies’ virtue signaling?

One of the more sickening developments in the fallout from the Supreme Court leak in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the rush by a number of American companies to assure their employees of their commitment to helping those who want an abortion to receive one, no matter what obstacles might stand in their way.

According to Forbes, companies like Amazon, Apple, Citigroup, Levi Strauss, Lyft, Microsoft, Tesla and Yelp have announced their intention to cover not only the cost of an abortion under the employee’s health coverage but to cover any associated travel expenses as well. In other words, if an employee lives in a state where abortion is not readily available, the employer will cover, up to a certain amount, the cost of travel to obtain the abortion. Such care and concern these companies have for those in their employ! I can see the recruiting billboards already: “Wanna get rid of your kid? Can’t find a child killer nearby? Work for [fill in company name]. We are here to help!”

The need to get out in front of this issue before the Court has even handed down its decision is a testament to the sacred cow abortion has become for the secular, progressive left. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s unhinged antics in front of the Supreme Court are only one example of the panic that has set in among some at the mere possibility Roe v. Wade could be overturned. That this, of all issues, is the one that drives some people to the brink is a chilling indictment of what they hold most dear: not the sustaining and nurturing of vulnerable, helpless life, but the destroying of it in the name of preserving the power and status of another. The irony, for those most likely to portray themselves as advocates for the weak and downtrodden, is resounding.

Yes, some of these companies also provide benefits that they frame as “pro-family.” That does not erase the fact that, while claiming to support families with children out one side of their mouth, they are simultaneously supporting the killing of children out the other side of their mouth. They can’t have it both ways, any more than the politicians who claim to be “personally” against abortion while supporting the “rights” of everyone to “choose what is best for their own situation.” The right of a child in the womb to be born is not dependent on how much he is wanted by those who contributed the DNA. Either he is deserving of protection and care, or he isn’t.

Of course, if Roe is overturned, it doesn’t mean abortion will be become illegal across the land. It only means that the question will be returned to each individual state, rather than left to the federal government, to address. The rejoinder to that by pro-abortion activists is that such a system is unfair because those who live in a state where abortion is not readily available, and who don’t have the resources to travel, will be at a disadvantage. But as always, the forgotten individual in this scenario is the child. Where is his or her justice? Why does he or she not merit any consideration on the “fairness” scale?

If the companies that are now so vigorously proclaiming their devotion to equality and fairness were truly interested in those things, they would direct their efforts — and their material support — to protecting the right to life for the most vulnerable in our midst. That could include offering their employees help not to kill their children but to bring those children safely into the world. In addition to medical coverage, leave and caregiver benefits, such an approach might include help obtaining social services and other resources to support the family that is struggling. And, if the parents do not find themselves equipped to care for the child, the company could assist with providing alternatives to abortion, such as placing the child for adoption.

Of course, all of that would probably cost a lot more than paying for the employee to travel out of state to get an abortion. A dead child is not a child who will be covered on the employee health plan.

All of this can’t help but lead one to ask: as they so vociferously scream about fairness while ignoring those with no voice, what are these companies really interested in? Protecting the weak, or engaging in leftist virtue signaling while looking out for their own bottom line?