Random observations of a socio-political nature.
Some observations on the current furor about birth control:
1. Given that some religious organizations are opposed to birth control (based on whatever shaky theological interpretations they choose to believe), one would assume that any member of that religious organization refrains from using birth control out of personal conviction, and therefore coreligionists covered by the organization's health insurance would not consume the medication whether it was free or otherwise. So there is no issue (with this particular insured population) resulting from having birth control be free, because the religious organization obviously won't be paying for something that is offered but not consumed.
2. If it is not the case that all members of the religious congregation adhere to the teachings of their organization, then what is really happening is an attempt by a church to have the government enforce their viewpoints because they aren't successful on their own. This is of course problematic under the First Amendment, although America has a long tradition of expecting the government to enforce conduct dictated by a narrow religious viewpoint even though the religious hierarchy is incapable of so doing (cf the pilgrims on the Mayflower).
3. Assuming that no church would be so crass as to insist that the government dictate behavior on their congregations that they cannot instill themselves, then we're talking about employees of a religious organization who are not themselves members of the congregation. Leaving aside the obvious point that no religion is required by law or faith to run businesses with employees, the argument is presented that providing "free" birth control as part of an insurance plan is somehow having the church pay for the birth control. But consider the status quo: the church doesn't provide "free" birth control, but pays the employee who then buys it on the open market. The contrast is therefore between the current situation, Church pays employee pays pharmacy, and the proposal: Church pays insurer pays pharmacy gives to employee. Either way, the money starts with the Church and ends at the pharmacy, and the only question is whether the Church gives it first to the employee or to the insurance company.
4. And why stop at birth control? Consider the Christian Scientists. A tenet of their faith is that illness is a consequence of erroneous belief. Now, because the Christian Scientists are tolerant (and I would say, therefore, actually Christian) they do not require that their congregation abhor conventional medicine (their view is more that conventional medicine is unnecessary if you pray/think/believe properly, not that it is wrong or an anathema). But let us hypothesize a sect that takes those beliefs further, and which does abhor any kind of conventional medical practice. Would we exempt any employee of a business run by them from providing any kind of health insurance?
1. Given that some religious organizations are opposed to birth control (based on whatever shaky theological interpretations they choose to believe), one would assume that any member of that religious organization refrains from using birth control out of personal conviction, and therefore coreligionists covered by the organization's health insurance would not consume the medication whether it was free or otherwise. So there is no issue (with this particular insured population) resulting from having birth control be free, because the religious organization obviously won't be paying for something that is offered but not consumed.
2. If it is not the case that all members of the religious congregation adhere to the teachings of their organization, then what is really happening is an attempt by a church to have the government enforce their viewpoints because they aren't successful on their own. This is of course problematic under the First Amendment, although America has a long tradition of expecting the government to enforce conduct dictated by a narrow religious viewpoint even though the religious hierarchy is incapable of so doing (cf the pilgrims on the Mayflower).
3. Assuming that no church would be so crass as to insist that the government dictate behavior on their congregations that they cannot instill themselves, then we're talking about employees of a religious organization who are not themselves members of the congregation. Leaving aside the obvious point that no religion is required by law or faith to run businesses with employees, the argument is presented that providing "free" birth control as part of an insurance plan is somehow having the church pay for the birth control. But consider the status quo: the church doesn't provide "free" birth control, but pays the employee who then buys it on the open market. The contrast is therefore between the current situation, Church pays employee pays pharmacy, and the proposal: Church pays insurer pays pharmacy gives to employee. Either way, the money starts with the Church and ends at the pharmacy, and the only question is whether the Church gives it first to the employee or to the insurance company.
4. And why stop at birth control? Consider the Christian Scientists. A tenet of their faith is that illness is a consequence of erroneous belief. Now, because the Christian Scientists are tolerant (and I would say, therefore, actually Christian) they do not require that their congregation abhor conventional medicine (their view is more that conventional medicine is unnecessary if you pray/think/believe properly, not that it is wrong or an anathema). But let us hypothesize a sect that takes those beliefs further, and which does abhor any kind of conventional medical practice. Would we exempt any employee of a business run by them from providing any kind of health insurance?