Background

Below is an anonymized version of a letter I shared with my employer to clarify their position and seek a less partisan policy. All references to my company have been replaced with “Acme” and any edited portions are surrounded with [square brackets].

My Letter

In this document, I express questions and concerns about the “New Reproductive Rights Travel Benefit”[1] in the form of two contradictions. Both contradictions exist between the decision to reimburse travel to abortion and the original announcement’s statement: “We at [Acme] have worked to create a welcoming space for all and believe in our guiding principles of Respecting Others”. I believe these two contradictions demonstrate that this partisan policy will not create a “welcoming space for all” and will have the unintended consequence of excluding certain groups from access to a “welcoming space” and respect.

Because abortion[2] is such an immensely important and impactful matter, affecting the lives of millions of mothers and the unborn (not to mention their families), I consider it necessary to express these contradictions with the hope of clarifying [Acme]’s position on these issues and seeking a less partisan policy which is more inclusive and respectful of diverse ideologies and people.

Contradiction 1: Regarding Pro-Life Employees

In contradiction of the work to “create a welcoming space for all” and “our guiding principles of Respecting Others”, this policy does not create a welcoming space for pro-life employees nor does it respect them and their convictions. By reimbursing travel to get an abortion, [Acme] is effectively requiring that all employees who make the company profitable (hopefully all of them), facilitate the procurement of abortions - a behavior which is, by definition, antithetical to the moral convictions of pro-life employees. I am concerned that this policy, far from creating a “welcoming space for all”, forces many current and potential pro-life employees to choose between funding something they believe is morally wrong or leaving [Acme]. Is there a new policy we could enact which will create a more welcoming space for pro-life employees and does not corner them into this difficult dilemma?

Contradiction 2: Regarding Unborn, Human Life in a Womb

The second contradiction of the work to “create a welcoming space for all” and “our guiding principles of Respecting Others” is that this policy does not create a “welcoming space” for unborn life in a womb nor does it respect that life - it facilitates the killing of it. I recognize that some of my pro-abortion colleagues may object to this representation and I sincerely want to learn how they represent what happens during an abortion. That being said, until convinced otherwise, I take it as a biological fact that a successful abortion kills an unborn life. As such, there is a contradiction in claiming this policy will help “create a welcoming space for all” and respect others; it only respects those outside of the womb and guarantees no welcoming space and respect for life inside the womb.

The only way I know of to resolve this contradiction is to presuppose that unborn life in a womb is not inherently worthy of receiving a “welcoming space” and respect. Is [Acme] making this presupposition? If so, on what basis and by what authority does [Acme] affirm that life in a womb is not inherently worthy of a “welcoming space” and respect? Is [Acme], an e-commerce company, qualified to speak authoritatively and definitively on a contentious bioethical subject which is still being debated across the United States and in our Federal Government?

If my suggested resolution of this contradiction is inaccurate, please explain how [Acme] resolves this contradiction. If [Acme] believes that unborn life in a womb is inherently worthy of receiving a “welcoming space” and respect, how can [Acme] justify this policy which deprives the unborn life of that which is supposedly inherent to it?

Conclusion

In the stated mission to “create a welcoming space for all” (emphasis added) and respect others, [Acme] has defined the terms “all” and “others” so narrowly that I fear these statements are declarations of partisan support rather than inclusion and respect for diverse ideologies and individuals. I am concerned that the work to “create a welcoming space for all” (emphasis added) only applies to employees who are pro-abortion and family members outside of a womb. Similarly, when applying the principle of respecting others, [Acme] effectively excludes pro-life employees and unborn human lives inside a womb from the ‘others’ deemed worthy of respect.

I know this document will be very difficult to read for many, but I believe this moment requires candor and clarity on this immensely consequential topic. We must be willing to have hard conversations if we are to form a just, diverse, and inclusive company in which no one (whether inside or outside a womb) is excluded from the respect that is inherently due them and the welcoming space we seek to provide.

Respectfully,

[Floyd]

Footnotes

[1] - In the original document, there is a link to the announcement here, but this was removed as the announcement I’m referencing was made internally.

[2] - In the original document, I have a footnote here noting that, when I refer to “abortion” or “abortions”, I am referring to abortions without medical necessity; that is, abortions which are not necessary to save the mother’s life. I note that there I am not aware of any states with restrictions on abortions for medical necessity and, therefore, assume that [Acme]’s policy of reimbursing travel to get abortions will primarily be used for abortions without medical necessity.