Religious Liberty?

[bennyboy]

You seem to be combining a few things, sex, BC and consequences.  Isn't the moral objection just BC?  Maybe i've not been paying attention but I don't think sex, it's consequences  or lack there of are enforceable on an employee by an employer.

I don't know what "BC" means, but let me address the last statement. Sex is usually only a health issue if someone chooses to engage in behaviors that make it an issue. Therefore, asking an employer to pay for sex-related health care makes the corporation (at least in Christians' eyes) complicit in that behavior. Presumably they are not against women's health care for other things: cancer screening, emergency hysterectomy, etc., or for treating actual infectious diseases.

Medical plans are not about treating only the sick, it's about preventive health as well, which in this case preventing a pregnancy is preventive health care.   And birth control can be prescribed for a number of other medical reasons, all which have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't an illness. It's the proper functioning of the female reproductive system. That's why employers shouldn't have to include terminating or preventing pregnancies as part of health care, any more than they should pay for my monthly haircuts.

Pregnancy is preventable without the involvement of a health care system. If some women want to prevent pregnancy in a particular way, then they should bear the responsibility of making it happen. As for "other medical reasons," fine: let a doctor make that call, and if a woman has a serious condition which requires medication or surgery, I doubt even Christian companies would object.

What is the difference between paying an employee a wage and having them buy BC vs. providing a required by law medical plan that provides BC?  In both scenarios the employer is  directly paying for the employee's BC.  There would actually be more degrees of separation with a medical plan.

My solution is that the government should run women's-health / sex clinics like Planned Parenthood, and that the minimum wage should be higher. This should enable people to get all the care they need, to afford additional options like the pill or UIDs, and should ensure that women out of work can still get assistance anyway. But in cases where health care is provided by the employer, I think minimal standards should be required-- and the minimal standard for pregnancy prevention is abstinence.

With regard to other scenarios, let me say this. I'm vegetarian. If I were required to feed my workers (I'm not, obviously), I wouldn't want to be involved in the purchase or distribution of meat. I'd most likely offer a vegetarian buffet or optional food voucher. In addition, although I know my employees eat meat, I will still pay them for their work, as what they do with their money is their privilege, and any moral "karma" that might be involved is up to them.

Ideally as an employer, I'd like to be able to put a "vegetarian employees only" stipulation when hiring, and put a vegetarian-only clause in my contracts. But I can't do that. I can only choose not to voluntarily do any more than I'm legally required to do in contributing to the deaths of animals. You don't get to say, "The rest of us don't consider animals important, so you have to buy meat for us."