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

What is "insurance" anyways?

[jennifer johnson (from livejournal.com)]

This whole discussion also operates under increasingly-common view of health insurance that implies it should cover all costs universally.

Truly, this is a bizarre notion of insurance. For example, most states require residents by law to have auto insurance, but the auto insurance does not pay for my tires, maintenance, or even repairs that are not linked to some kind of accident. Yet all of these items are still important for a vehicle to remain safe and operational.

I could delve into a whole other rant about how I think we're missing the mark with health insurance to begin with, but I suppose that is another topic. Insurance should essentially function to protect a person from catastrophic financial ruin in the event of unforeseen circumstances - such is the case with virtually every other kind of insurance. Health insurance has become a great deal more than that, and while I find that problematic, it is what it is. That's fine, but I cannot find justification for mandating religious organizations to provide coverage non-essential, non-major health care, when it contradicts their ethics.

I find Ian's argument about the child labor as somewhat of a straw man. Having to purchase one's own NuvaRing is hardly a violation of human rights. The Church being mandated to pay for it is hardly religious persecution, either, though I do find it to be a small violation of religious liberty to be forced to play a role, as a religious organization, that violates religious ethics. If a law passed mandating the ROTC's presence on private university campuses in order to receive accreditation, I would hope that universities run by any pacifist faiths would be similarly exempt.

Re: What is "insurance" anyways?

[ian-tiberius.livejournal.com]

The thing about health insurance is that health care is a huge portion of a normal family's budget these days, far more than it's ever been in the past, and it can be wildly variable from month to month. Even relatively minor injuries or illnesses can result in bills for thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars. When I had appendicitis a few years back, that was a completely unforeseeable, unpreventable occurrence that would have cost me around eight thousand dollars if I hadn't been insured. Catastrophic? Not for me, but for a family that gets by on the median income - or, God forbid, less - it would be devastating.

For families that don't have piles of cash lying around, it makes a great deal of sense to have an insurance plan that covers everything (or almost everything) and reduce that unpredictability down to a simple monthly payment that you can plan for in your budget. It's easy to dismiss if you're upper middle class, but for probably the majority of the population in this country, this is critical.

Now back to the issue at hand. The fact is that all businesses in this country have to cooperate with a wide variety of regulations. You're calling my child labor analogy a straw man because that's an obvious human rights violation, but that wasn't really my point. So let's find a less dramatic analogy. Nobody's allowed to refuse to pay overtime because it violates their religious conviction that idle hands are the devil's playground. Nobody's allowed to ignore OSHA regulations, or hire 17-year-olds to serve booze, or refuse to hire black people, on the basis of their religious beliefs. Why is the Catholic church special?

Furthermore, the whole thing is horseshit. Consider:

* Catholic hospital pays employee a salary as compensation for work performed, employee cashes paycheck and buys birth control pills - perfectly okay

* Catholic hospital pays for employee's health insurance as compensation for work performed, employee procures birth control pills from insurance company - DANGER DANGER OBAMA IS TRAMPLING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

There are certain legal requirements every company (well, almost every company over a certain size) is obligated to meet if they want to hire employees in this country. You have to pay minimum wage, you have to observe safety regulations, you have to provide health insurance. Nobody gets to pick and choose which of these regulations to observe and which to ignore.

And if you still disagree - are Christian Scientists allowed to provide no health insurance whatsoever? Are Muslims allowed to deny you a lifesaving heart operation that involves a pig valve? If not, why are these situations different from the Catholic/birth control situation?