This thought outraged my friend. She wondered aloud if the court victory for Christians was worth the travesty this could be for employees' health insurance coverage.
Of course I was also relieved about the court's decision, though I was saddened that it was a 5-4 vote. Apparently four justices cannot understand the First Amendment (i.e., free exercise of religion) and the 1993 law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Either they don't understand or they just want to defy the Constitution.
But my friend's misplaced outrage that some kooky employer would use this as a loophole to not provide reasonable health insurance to their employees was disheartening to me. Do I think this could happen in this big country of ours? Yes, I do. Should we be concerned about it? No.
"Oh, there you go again, you heartless conservative," you may say. Hold on. Let's take a step back from the minutiae of this case. Here are the questions we should be asking ourselves:
- Should the federal government be involved in specifying what health insurance benefits a private employer offers his employees?
- Hint: nothing in the constitution gives the federal government this power, and we're talking about PRIVATE business!
- Should private businesses be required by the federal government to subsidize citizens' sex lives?
- Hint: you gotta be kidding me!
- If private businesses opt out or can use a religious exemption from (in reality the Supreme Court ruling is for just some of the contraceptives) providing contraceptives in their health insurance plans should the federal government subsidize citizens' sex lives?
- Hint: as usual, liberals want to show their compassion by spending your tax dollars!
- Should the federal government require any business to provide abortifacients to its employees?
- Hint: the federal government is prohibited from funding abortion due to the Hyde Amendment and cannot be allowed to force others to do it.
- Should someone who desires to use contraceptives buy it with their own money instead of acting as if it is their right to have it provided to them? (see image above)
- Hint: of course!
You're right- it's the whole bill that's irrational. Tell your friend, don't worry that a Jehovah Witness business would stop someone's transfusions. After all, the government through Obamacare will say the person is too old for transfusions anyway. Though they'd likely postpone the decision for transfusions by Executive order and exempt the Muslim and the union and the Amish.
ReplyDeleteYour friend wasn't worried about a Tea Party conservative being permitted a kidney transplant through government insurance!
Yes, I think the left in the Senate hates our forefathers and the Constitution.