OH HELL NO

[moonwise]

Arizona wades into contraception controversy

The Arizona Senate is considering a bill that would give all businesses the option to exclude contraceptives from health insurance coverage. The only exception is if a woman can prove she is taking the contraceptives for other medical reasons.

Supporters say such a law would protect the religious beliefs of employers, while critics assert the tradeoff would be an affront to the liberties of employees.

Comments

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the response. If you ever feel that I'm picking on you too much, please please please let me know. It's just that you often post about issues that I care about, we have productive discussions even when we disagree, and most of the other folks who meet those criteria have gone over to Facebook.

I find myself torn on this particular issue, and hashing it out here has been helpful. On one hand, I would wholeheartedly welcome universally accessible birth control, for all the reasons you've given above and moar. My wife and I are being responsible and are committed to not having children, so I'd much rather pay for somebody else's BC than subsidize their brood through tax credits, school taxes, or welfare programs. If the right-wingers weren't held hostage by their religious beliefs, they'd realize this the The Smart Thing To Do (tm).

But on the other hand, I'm wary of the government throwing out something as fundamental as religious liberty (no pun intended) for The Good of the State. As much as I detest myself for calling "Oh noes the slippery slope!" here, I have to wonder what kind of precedent this would set (hence my obvious rhetorical trap regarding Vegan employers, which you negotiated quite well). I was raised Catholic and have grown to be somewhere between Agnostic and Deist, so I don't want the feds, or anyone else, telling me that I'm now required to give monetary support to something that goes against my beliefs, even if it is for the so-called Greater Good.

And this next bit is not directed at you, but there's a maddening amount of hypocrisy going around. The same liberals who spent eight years bitching and moaning about GWB trampling the Constitution now seem able to conveniently ignore the Establishment Clause, because in this case it gets them what they want.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

I don't want the feds, or anyone else, telling me that I'm now required to give monetary support to something that goes against my beliefs

The government does an awful lot of things with my money to which I am idealogically opposed - funding unwinnable wars, taking away sex ed programs and replacing them with abstinence-only education, providing aid to countries that I don't think deserve it... the list goes on. How is BC different? Do I get to stop paying taxes because teaching creationism in NJ public school goes against my atheism?

One could probably run in circles on this issue for some time, but IMO it boils down to this: BC is cheaper than babies.

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

I'd thought about this issue while posting the previous reply, and here's the best I've been able to come up with. When the government takes my tax dollars, I have some influence, via the ballot box, over how that money is spent (and please pay no attention to the political naiveté behind the curtain). I know that I will never get everything I want from this process, but nor will anybody else. This is called compromise.

So it's not birth control that's the issue, it's that the government is mandating every citizen purchase a product from the private sector regardless of any moral opposition and (the important part) with no direct accountability or path for recourse. For example, I would not support a law saying that every homeowner was required to purchase a security system with private monitoring because this would reduce crime and save money for the police department.

I realize that's splitting the hair pretty thin, but it's the best I've got.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

For example, I would not support a law saying that every homeowner was required to purchase a security system with private monitoring because this would reduce crime and save money for the police department.

I'm glad that the government doesn't require security systems, because they are a colossal waste of money for all the false alarms they generate. But, the law does mandate that you purchase car insurance if you own a car, and homeowner's insurance if you own a house. Every citizen has to pay into Social Security and Medicare, even though you and I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever receiving either program ourselves.

Again, running in circles. Me, I think that the kerfuffle over BC has its roots in what people claim should be happening vs. what they actually do. Admitting the truth means going against "principles," which then leads to a whole bunch of questions that are very uncomfortable to answer. Better just to hold the party line.

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

As much as I hate to agree with the republicans on this one, nobody is forced to drive a car or own a house, and I have several friends who get along quite well without one or the other. The individual mandate requires you to buy something simply because you exist.

But I think you're dead on regarding BC.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

Oh, and ps - you now owe me an answer re: Viagra. :)

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

As a Testicled American who makes an effort to stay healthy and drops several hundred dollars a month on insurance premiums, they had damn well better cover my Viagra if I ever get ED.

I'll admit that this is a hard question (pun intended). If you're asking whether it's unfair/hypocritical/chauvinistic to cover ED treatment and not cover birth control, then the answer is a big YES. But if the question is whether to cover medication/treatment that allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility because a magic pill will fix it later...not so cut-and-dry. I dislike the idea of rewarding people for bad choices by covering these things with insurance, but nor am I comfortable with the idea that the ability to erase past mistakes depends on the size of one's bank account.