I hate that:
We can't cover contraceptives because if we do people will just go out and ******** like bunnies and take risks and have risky sex that we don't morally approve of. Oh, but older men
need to have sex or else the emotional ramifications of not being able to have sex at all will make their lives less worth living. WTF. They don't want to encourage sex, but at the same time they want to encourage sex.
It is just one of the many signs that sexism still exists in our patriarchal society.
However I really hate this reasoning:
Quote:
"We must weigh against (their) interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith the state's substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care."
It was the reason that Ms. Carder was killed. It is the reason many women are forced into C-sections. It is the
strongest legal reason abortion can be overturned one day. The state's invested interest in a certain cause over-rides the constitutional and natural rights given to an individual. I believe that is bull s**t. At the same time, however, I do believe that organizations shouldn't be allowed to jeopardize their imployees over freedom.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn, or how to justify that line.
Clearly it is wrong for the government to say "our invested interest in those five people over there means we can kill you and take your organs."
It is debatable if the government can say "our invested interest in the fetus over there means we can use your body for a [relatively] short period of time."
It seems perfectly fine to say "our invested interest in the health of our nation means we can force a place of employment [not an individual, but a vague conglomerate organization] to provide all facets of health care."
Also, it seems kinda squeemish to say to people "you can not abide by the doctrines of your religion because the government says so." Somehow that seems unconstitutional. But even so, there are many instances in the past where religious organizations were told STFU NO when they tried to justify their actions and inactions with religion (interracial marriage anyone? and in the modern day and age gay marriage? in the past slavery? In the distant past witch trials? etc). Clearly freedom of religion's buck stops somewhere, and apparently the health of an individual is more important than a religious organizations rights to religious freedom.
Reply
