The PPACA contraceptive mandate is well defended by an issue brief
here. A reference to
Ella brings to mind the border between contraceptives and abortifacients since that works five days after sex, more likely involving a fertilized egg. I find the "line"
dubious anyways.
2 comments:
The argument neglected to mention that the religious right involved is not that of the employer. It is that of the employee. The coverage is part of the employee's compensation and the employee is free to use it as the employee sees fit. Noone (I think) would argue that the employer could restrict how the employee spends her/his paycheck unless we want a return to the days of contraceptives being illegal.
The argument is often made by top down sorts while the actual people involved have a more individualized idea of religious liberty.
As to the last point, some employers would want to fire people for mere use. Teachers have been for doing things against a faith fairly recently to my understanding. But, as you suggest, a general rule there to some secretary would be broad indeed.
For some reason, however, health insurance is seen differently than a paycheck, just like the government providing social insurance by fire departments (a form of "fire insurance") is seen differently. Not by me, but artificial line drawing is something fairly well known in religious doctrine.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!