Toying with the Lady Parts
Feb. 8th, 2012 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
essentialsaltesFirebrand 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: What is "insurance" anyways?
Date: 2012-02-17 02:07 am (UTC)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?