Toying with the Lady Parts

[essentialsaltes]

Firebrand godless childfree abortions-for-all person that I am, I'm still a little ambivalent about the Obama Administration's decision to make quasi-religious groups offer insurance plans to employees that cover birth control.

I mean, I honestly feel that a full range of family planning services is an essential part of women's healthcare. So... shouldn't the government direct insurance companies to cover family planning? But in that case, why have any exemption at all for churches?

I mean, if the Church of Red Asphalt has a philosophical objection to seatbelts, that doesn't stop the government from making laws that automakers have to follow. Those laws don't affect individual consciences or the tenets of the church.

If some nun wants to go on the Pill, it's no business of mine to help enforce the Church's will on her, that she not use BC, or if she does, she's damn well going to pay full price for it. She has her own conscience, and presumably knows what she wants. And if the Church finds out, they can always fire her or defrock her or whatever, like the Catholic school that fired the teacher for getting pregnant through artificial insemination. (Yay, religious liberties!)

I guess the problem is if the Red Asphaltists take their convictions so strongly that they forswear cars. Analogously, if churches or religious organizations stood on principle and dropped medical insurance for their employees, that would not appear to be a good thing, either. And this would conceivably apply not only to churches, but also the other religiously branded organizations currently under discussion.
(However, since many states already require this sort of coverage, presumably this is not what would happen.)

As a more realistic analogy, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, even in life or death cases. This is a "non-negotiable religious stand", and JW's generally ostracize (former) members who undergo such procedures. Although their religious stand is quite clear, I don't think they are exempt from offering insurance that covers transfusions. Should they be? I don't see any difference, except that people get a lot more excitable when we start talking about lady parts, and what ought and oughtn't to be done with them.

Can I start my church that has as its central dogma that medical treatments that cost more than $100 are anathema? Can I then get really cheap 'medical' insurance to offer my employees?

Do we want the free market to decide what procedures insurance companies offer coverage for?
If not, and there is some sort of established nucleus of medical procedures that must legally be covered, why shouldn't birth control be part of that?

Comments

Religious Freedom

[jennifer johnson (from livejournal.com)]

Religious organizations should retain their right to operate as they choose in the United States. There is a long-standing precedent that if you choose to work for a church or religious organization, you are not offered the same government-mandated benefits and protections you would be if you worked for a regular employer. The employee and employer are presumably entering an arrangement of certain values and beliefs that are mutually understood.

I worked for an extremely small employer when I became pregnant with my first child. My employment was pretty much terminated as a result, albeit cordially and with warning. I had all manner of well-intended friends and family members screaming I should cry foul, demand maternity leave, etc. But - it was a small employer. It is regulated differently. A small company with 2.5 employees cannot afford to hold a job for 3 months or offer paid leave, or operate at profit when over a third of its work force is suddenly removed. I knew the risks, costs, and benefits associated with my employment arrangement when I chose to accept the job.

The prospective employee bears some responsibility to evaluate the employment situation before accepting a job. Government regulations can offer protections to individuals so that there is no bait and switch or withholding of reasonably expected benefits on the part of large companies, corporations, government employers, etc. But ultimately, you don't accept a job with a 3-person company if having FMLA benefits are of vital importance to you. You don't accept a job at Holy Spirit Catholic School if you want your employer to pay for your NuvaRing. This is just common sense.

Presumably, our judicial system is equipped to handle anyone who tries to abuse religious freedom protections by creating Church of the Cheap Medical Insurance out of nowhere.

Re: Religious Freedom

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Religious organizations should retain their right to operate as they choose in the United States. There is a long-standing precedent that if you choose to work for a church or religious organization, you are not offered the same government-mandated benefits and protections you would be if you worked for a regular employer. The employee and employer are presumably entering an arrangement of certain values and beliefs that are mutually understood.

So, historical precedent is the reason this should remain the way it is?

Re: Religious Freedom

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

At one time, it was mutually understood by employer and employee that small children would work fourteen-hour-days in dangerous factories. Precedent alone is not a sufficient reason to preserve the status quo.

The fact that the Church might not like what their employees do with their benefits doesn't mean they can be withheld. Can they refuse to issue a paycheck because the employee is going to buy condoms, or cancel vacation time because the employee is going to go visit (and have sex with) someone he isn't married to? Of course not. So what makes health benefits different?