The Blunt Bill, which sought to allow any employer in America to deny certain medical insurance coverage to employees on the grounds that it violates their personal religious beliefs, failed to pass the Senate last week. This bill would have widely expanded the Obama administration's January measure, as part of the new health care reform law, requiring religiously affiliated institutions to cover contraception. In a later compromise, Obama adjusted the rule to require insurance companies, rather than Catholic schools and hospitals, to guarantee contraceptive coverage if the religious institutions themselves refused. Since the controversy first heated up, Republicans have disingenuously framed the debate as a "war on religion." Nothing could be further from the truth.
And the truth is, America is a secular society. The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, preventing government from mixing religion and politics. What the Obama administration has done with health care and its contraception policy is to protect religious freedom, not assail or violate it.
Some Republicans, like presidential candidate Rick Santorum, have used the birth control issue to expound extreme social views. Contraception, he said, is "a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." The fact that the Centers for Disease Control cite that 99% of all American women have used birth control escapes the former Pennsylvania senator. I suppose, in the infamous words of the GOP's spiritual leader Rush Limbaugh, these women are all "sluts" to Santorum.
So here's what it all boils down to: where do we draw the line with employers regarding contraception and other medical/health coverage? If the Catholic Church can take a pass on birth control, can a business owned by Christian Scientists pass on drugs, surgery and other conventional methods? Can Jewish-owned businesses deny delivery coverage unless parents of newborn males agree to circumcision? Should we simply say to those who don't like such policies, go to work someplace else?
Yeah, why not just let employers hire people who share their religious beliefs so there won't be an insurance problem, right? Wrong. That's called discrimination. There are laws protecting against such violations of religious freedom and one's ability to get a job without being subjected to religious Litmus tests.
Employers don't get to play God. And they don't get to decide what goes into or out of a woman's vagina. Nor do they get to pick and choose an employee's health coverage in an effort to satisfy their religious beliefs.
To be sure, there is no "war on religion" other than the one being waged by right-wing religious extremists like Santorum, Newt Gingrich and countless others who relentlessly attempt to impose their fanatical beliefs on everyone else.
Follow Andy Ostroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndyOstroy
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
If I am an employer whose religious beliefs tell me that (a) I may not aid anyone, either directly or indirectly, in committing a morally evil act, and (b) artificial contraception is a moral evil, then compelling me to provide my employees with artificial contraception can only be seen as denying me the right to freely exercise of my religion.
What about my employee who doesn't hold my religious beliefs? Well, she knew (or should have known) the situation when she applied for a job with me and, that not withstanding, she is always free to seek employment elsewhere anytime she wishes.
The Constitution guarantees me the right to practice my religion. It does not, however, give you the right to work for me, especially when other employers who do not hold my religious beliefs are readily available.
Thank you in advance.
Yet one more giveaway.
This is yet another example of the top 1% using the 99% as their doormats. To the power-hungry employers out there: BACK OFF!
Wouldn't that enable them, under this same logic, to put forth a solid argument that they, as an employer, need not comply with certain anti-discrimination laws?
oh if there was ever a time when these bullied woman could hit back at their oppressive husbands is to get out and vote.... there is no fury as bad as a woman scorned... its the 21st century... do not let this country slink back to the dark ages.