This article came from "The Washington Post."
The title might be a little misleading. The situation is a little more passive than a cage fight.
The article outlined an interesting issue. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, contains a provision that requires employers to provide coverage to their employees for contraception. A Catholic non-profit organization, the Little Sisters of the Poor, has objected to the provision. They argue that the provision violates the protection guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama Administration has stated that the organization doesn't require protection because the organization can easily exempt itself from the provision. The Nuns say that the exemption would merely differ the contraceptive cervices to a third party that would then be reimbursed by the government. They say that it is an equal violation of their religious beliefs to compel someone else to sin on their behalf. They say that they are essentially given the option of violating their religious beliefs or receiving a fine. The article then went on to show the same objections being raised by for-profit organizations: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the latter of which was denied exception.
I admit I have a pretty significant bias when it comes to this issue on multiple levels. Ultimately, I have to side with the nuns, as well as other religious organizations.
First of all, I think that Obama is shooting himself in the foot by including a contraceptive provision to the ACA. It's sort of the same issue that plagued the GOP when the government shutdown, only on a smaller scale. Why would you include such a controversial provision into an otherwise reasonable idea? It only fosters more resistance to the bill and prevents the other benefits of the bill from being employed. It seems to me that first passing Obamacare without the provision would enable the more fundamental elements of the bill while fostering a little more support that the bill would with the provision. Then the contraceptive provision could be addressed as a secondary issue while the greater part of the ACA would be in action. The only reasons I can think of that the contraceptive provision would need to be included in the initial bill are A) President Obama sees contraceptives as an inherently essential part of medical well being and/or B) the provision wouldn't be passed otherwise. Both of these lead me to my next objection.
I don't think that contraception is in any way essential. Perhaps I am forgetting a fairly obvious and essential purpose of contraception, and if that is the case then please comment below, but I don't quite understand why contraception equates to things like regular check-ups, immunizations, and other preventative and restorative cares. Generally, a pregnancy (outside of situations like, say, rape) involves a considerably larger amount of choice than say, getting strep-throat does. An argument could be made for the importance of contraception within a marriage, but the prevention of impregnation as a result of extramarital relations is totally nonessential. To require those who object to sexual conduct outside of a traditional marriage, whether those objections originate religiously or not, to provide a service that would remove the natural consequences of those relations is completely inappropriate. A provision that differentiated between the coverage of married and unmarried persons might alleviate some of the objections, but the legislation required to create that provision on a national scale is probably unrealistic. Even then, however, many religions regard any use, by married persons or not, of contraception as immoral.
I understand the subjectivity of morals and I realize that it is equally immoral to impose my morals onto somebody else. If you believe that extramarital relations are acceptable, then I respect the ability for the two of us to have different beliefs. That being said, I feel like this contraceptive provision does the opposite of that, by imposing contraceptive services onto organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, that object to contraception.
Comments are appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment