Religious Liberty?

[bennyboy]

I'm not so sure that contraception needs to be part of the package provided by employers.  Most don't (as far as I know at least) provide dental or optical coverage in their insurance, since while those things are nice, they are generally not strictly necessary.  Surely, a full-time worker can afford to purchase condoms, and birth control beyond that is optional.

There's a difference between extending to someone the liberty to make choices, and having to pay for stuff.

That being said, as an employer of female staff, I'm not a big fan of training people and then paying for maternity leave while subs flounder around the office.  If a few condoms or a couple extra dollars a month for other options might allow me to maintain stability in the workforce, I'm all for it.  This is also why I pay for gym memberships-- not because I'm a super-nice guy, but because I think healthy people will be better employees. Win, win, methinks-- but if I HAD to pay for all that stuff, legally, I'd be pretty unhappy about it.

Sure it does.

"They can buy condoms!"

Guess what?  Condoms aren't the most effective at preventing pregnancy.  Especially for women whom getting pregnant again would pose a significant health risk.  Telling them they 'shouldn't have sex then' is total bullshit because that's not an Employers decision to make.  And how about women who have heavy menstrual bleeding where the best treatment is birth control pills, not covered by employers who say that it's against their personal beliefs.  

Employers don't get to make healthcare decisions for their employees.  Certainly not because "Oh they can buy condoms!"

I think it's typical that the liberties of one group are carried by another.  Right now, I'd say that in the US, the many liberties of the rich are carried by the poor, which is clearly unfair-- and is most unfair to poor women, who have needs that men don't (as you've mentioned).  The things you are talking about cost money, and if they are enforced legally, then it means that the government has decided that the company should bear more of a burden for the employees' liberties, at the cost of those of the company or its management.

Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't have good health care.  However, the question is to what degree the company should be legally (or morally) obliged to provide it.  Where should that balance in liberties lie?  Because it's not just "the company will give me my liberty or they will be dicks and not give me my liberty."  This is a skewed an unfair view of the situation: companies, their owners, their management, etc. have liberty, too, and their freedom to exercise it is also important to them.

Would you accept government support for an expanded Planned Parenthood program, including either free or subsidized pills and abortions, with several branches in each state, as a solution?  Or is it really more important to you to make sure that religious owners and managers are forced to provide it, because you think they, and their liberties, should be put in their place? Because in my opinion, the government, knowing that things like contraception and abortion are touchy issues with many (probably most) religions, could enforce the separation of church and state by separating sexual health services from company-provided health care coverage completely.