(1) "Under the compromise, religious institutions will not be required to provide contraceptive coverage because insurers will provide contraception directly to employees at no cost, completely removing religious institutions from the equation."
Response: Actually, the compromise DOES force religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, it just says they don't have to pay for it. The coverage is a specific benefit of employment - it begins when employment starts, and ceases if and when employment terminates. The coverage is a direct benefit of employment - the institutions are being forced to include this coverage in their package of benefits. Far from removing the institution from the equation, the institution is actually the trigger for the coverage. If they were truly removed from the equation, it would mean that employment with a religious institution would have no effect on the coverage - rather, the employment is the defining factor for whether coverage for contraception exists or not.
(2) “It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or pay for benefits that they find objectionable, but it guarantees a women’s right to access."
Response: Again, it DOES force them to offer benefits they object to on religious grounds. That they don't have to pay for it just removes the insult from the injury. Also, no one is suggesting that women should be prohibited from accessing contraception. A woman's right to access contraceptive choices is already guaranteed, whether they have a job or insurance or not. There is a big difference between guaranteeing access to it, and guaranteeing payment for it.
(3) "As Republicans stand with the conservative Catholic bishops in opposition to allowing women to receive contraception at no cost, they are embracing an increasingly extreme anti-contraception position."
Response: This is true, and that's the whole point. The Constitution protects a person's or institution's right to oppose contraception. They are constitutionally permitted to "embrace an increasingly extreme anti-contraception position." The liberals may not like this opposition, but the Constitution protects numerous rights, even ones liberals don't like. In being permitted to oppose contraception, institutions are permitted not to offer coverage for it as a benefit of employment. The "compromise" violates that right by forcing religious institutions to offer coverage for contraception as a direct benefit of employment.
As I've said before, the difference between being forced to provide something and being forced to pay for it are not the same thing. The objection was never to the cost of the insurance coverage - the objection is the provision of it as a benefit of employment because it violates their religious values. This compromise still forces religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception, and therefore, still violates the Constitution.
It's the same as telling a Jewish institution that they have to provide pork as a lunch choice in their cafeteria, they just don't have to pay for the pork. Employees of that Jewish institution have access to pork at all sorts of restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores - they just shouldn't expect that their employer will provide it for them as a benefit of their employment, because the institution has a religious objection to it.
Think Progress understands this, they just don't care. The Constitution is an impediment to the creation of a nation with a central government that may force people and institutions to do whatever they want them to do, and prohibit them from doing what they don't want them to do. Those darned inalienable rights keep getting in the way of their progress, but once they get their foot in the door all our rights are at stake.
Think Progress article:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/12/423563/gop-continues-to-oppose-contraception-coverage-plan-now-supported-by-large-catholic-institutions/
No comments:
Post a Comment