And "composed" is not a feeling I really embody right now.
However, I've been mulling something for the last few days, and the time has come to get it organized and out or risk simply spewing it in a most unattractive fashion.
So Em posts this response to my last post:
Sorry, I can't get behind GayPatriot on the contraception issue - his quoted material has a bit that says "But that would be to discriminate against women, the courts have held, since only women get pregnant. Thus does our antidiscrimination law, as found in statutes, trump religious liberty, as once protected by the Constitution." Well, hell yeah, anti-discrimination should trump religious liberty. We get up in arms about Islamic practices and Sharia law, saying that women should have more rights than that imposes, but when it comes to the US's dominate religion discrimination is OK?
First off, I'm not picking on Emily. She'd be the first one to say that she enjoys a spirited debate, and she and I have had enough little back-and-forths to know how to interpret each other. Also, I think I can safely say we both feel strongly enough on this issue to give it a better airing. So thank you, Em, for the inspiration.
Secondly, long-time readers know a few things about me:
- I'm not a feminist insofar as espousing the current definition of such.
- I don't generally discuss topics under the aegis of feminism, because it's not particularly important to me.
If that means turning in my girl card, suck it. I know who and what I am and more importantly, what I believe, and I don't need someone trying to speak "for" me or convince me otherwise. THAT's what the whole "choice" issue and "rights" fight was all about, IMNHO.
But I digress, per usual.
Em wants to equivocate religious liberty as guaranteed by our Constitution (Amendment 1, Bill of Rights) with perceived anti-discrimination practices. Moreover, this is done in the context of trying to justify a crass violation of the Constitution with another violation of the Constitution.
The First Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ponder the first five words here: "Congress shall make no law… ." That's the bit that gets overlooked the most, and one of the most relevant points to me here. Congress, under direction of The Anointed One, did just that: they made a law1 that violates the "free exercise thereof" when they crafted the healthcare fiasco. And you can't convince me that it wasn't done purposely, the proverbial "foot in the door" incrementalism sort of precedent-making that the left is so fond of.
But bear with me – I have to get to that point later. There's not room for it here.
the problem started here.
A private employer has the right to offer a select package of compensation to its employees. Traditionally, and up until probably the last 20 years or so, the offer of health insurance was a high-end perk designed to help attract the best and brightest candidates to a potential position. It wasn't a given that the job you were applying for would provide this for you. Therefore, private insurers offered a variety of options to workers who sought such coverage.
As any Costco member knows, it's often less expensive to buy in bulk. Insurance is no exception to this rule, and it became beneficial to both employer and employee to offer health insurance as a benefit. And it also became common practice to do so, as it became more popular and more affordable to do so.
I admit that the insurance companies bear much of the blame for the doom that has been visited upon them. By creating vehicles like HMOs, where the actual cost of services is masked from the consumer, they've helped to inflate said cost on the supply side. Whether from abuse, overuse, or simply knowing that "hey, the insurance will reimburse/cover it," costs have skyrocketed.
Add to that a lazy American public, used to the bread-and-circus approach to life. They don't have to work as hard to earn the money for their own major medical emergency plan. They can fork over a $10 or $20 copay and get looked at for a case of the sniffles. They don't, for the most part, see the true cost of the service and product, so they simply use and use and use and use. And demand more.
feed me!
Suddenly, the responsibility for providing for yourself and your family is no longer yours. What? They want $50 more a pay period to cover my insurance? That's robbery! What? They won't cover sniffles anymore? I've got to buy my own [insert healthcare product here] now? What?
Take the binkie out of the mouth of John Q. Public and that's what you get. Which is why the public accepted and swallowed the myth that Obamacare was needed in the first place.
which it wasn't.
I'm going to quote the estimable Mr. Blatt here, because he succinctly states what would take me another page to do:
The basic question is should a private organization be able to determine the type of benefits it offers its employees. A liberal administration is now trying to force religious organizations to pay for benefits supported by advocacy groups aligned with the Democrats. By the same logic, a conservative administration could try to force private groups (say, universities) to offer (or not offer) benefits supported by advocacy groups aligned with Democrats.
This is the basic objection to Obamacare as a whole, not just from a First Amendment standpoint. There is NO Constitutional mandate nor allowance for the federal government to force this sort of policy change on any private entity. Even if you took out the liberal/conservative bits this logic still holds.
If a corporation, small business, non-profit, or private institution of any stripe wishes to provide a health insurance benefit of any sort to its employees, it should be able to do so in a manner of its choosing. If it is deemed prudent, profitable, and popular to choose benefit package A vs. benefit package B, then that is their choice and should remain their choice.
And I thought all y'all libs were all about choice. Or is that only when killing babies is concerned?
For a government entity to broadly step in and say in the booming voice of God:
"You can't do that because it lacks codicil X. We say so."
is clearly the government overstepping its bounds by any definition and should never have passed the Congressional smell test in the first place. But when the House, Senate, and executive branch are all worshipping at the same altar of progressivism, that's what you get.
Unless you're the Senate and the idea of passing a budget comes up. Then I guess you can fart around all day. But again, I digress.
If I take employment with an organization that is run by, espouses, is funded by, or in any way promotes a certain belief system, then I have to expect that this system permeates every facet of the organization's structure. For example, I wouldn't bring a salami sandwich for lunch if I worked for PETA. I have to watch my language when I work with the Girl Scouts. (Easier some days than others.) A friend's sister worked for a Jewish organization and had to give up her Pepsi habit because it wasn't considered kosher/pareve. (At least, it wasn't at the time. That's since changed.)
Ergo, if I work for Catholic Charities/St. Elizabeth Hospital/Our Lady of Perpetual Hope Care Center/Star of the Sea School/[insert Catholic sponsored organization here], then I have to assume a few things.
- I get a lot of holy days off.
- I'm expected to not tell off-color jokes in front of Sister Margaret. Sister Mary Bernard, however, loves them and has a few of her own she likes to share. Except in front of Sister Margaret.
- No Quarter Pounders on Fridays during Lent. Filet-o-Fish is okay.
- My healthcare plan is not going to cover contraception, sterilization or abortion.
Why should this be a surprise to anyone? If you've come out from under a rock at any time in the last century or two you know that the Catholic Church doesn't officially support any attempt to suppress conception or eliminate viable life. This is an essential and integral part of Catholic dogma doctrine (thank you, Cindy) and always has been.
And despite the whining of certain special interest groups over the last 40 years or so, it's not changing. Nor should it have to.
If it is absolutely essential to you as a woman that your insurance cover the lousy $30 bucks that you pay every month for your OrthoCyclen, then find a job with a company that offers that coverage. Likewise, if you worked for Al's Accounting Services and their benefits package didn't cover something you personally deemed essential, you would seek other employment. Or should. Or seek supplemental coverage. See? You have options!
Rather, "had" options. Because of this travesty that I often refer to as Obamacare, you will no longer have that choice or that option. Big Daddy Gov't is going to tell you what you need, what you can have, what you can't have, how often you can have it, and what it's ultimately going to cost you as a taxpayer – because nothing's free, sweetheart.
And it trampling on Constitutionally mandated rights to do it.
I do see a difference between what I consider to be direct religious institutions vs. big employers with a religious affiliation, but I'm not sure that I believe that difference is enough. Then again, I don't know if the Churches, Synogogues, etc have enough employees to force them to provide insurance, versus getting their employees on the exchanges.
This is troubling to me for so many reasons. That one can so blithely write "have enough employees to force them to provide insurance," mostly. As if this is okay by any standard, secular or no.
As troubling is this statement, mentioned above:
Well, hell yeah, anti-discrimination should trump religious liberty. We get up in arms about Islamic practices and Sharia law, saying that women should have more rights than that imposes, but when it comes to the US's dominate religion discrimination is OK?
that mostly offends because of the moral equivalency problem. Religious liberty is the ultimate in anti-discrimination. It is, ultimately, one of the founding principles of this country, and persecution against Catholics in this nation has a long and inglorious history that has only recently started to subside (JFK, anyone?).
If you are trying to equivocate following and or respecting the prevailing belief system of the sponsoring religious organization as an employee of that organization or one connected to it with following your own personal beliefs, then you miss the point of the argument altogether, and you need to scroll about eight paragraphs up and reread.
If one voluntarily contracts with a religious or religious-sponsored organization, one needs to respect the edicts of said organization with regard to workplace conduct, procedure, and provided benefits. Otherwise, one needs to find employment elsewhere.
Nowhere does it state in someone's contract, I am sure, that one needs to adhere to said precepts outside of the workplace. My friend's sister, for example, was not expected to keep kosher outside of work. So, if the personnel director at St. E's informs Person X that contraception isn't covered in their insurance policy, they need to make alternate arrangements for that.
And quite frankly, if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to pay for your own pills, and old enough to find a source for them. Exercise your freedoms.
Mr. Blatt further expounds on his points in a response to a NYT article. Best bit was him quoting Richard Epstein (whose piece for the Hoover Institution is quite fascinating in itself):
A direct legislative order to engage in conduct antithetical to their religious convictions would be in flat violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion,” which is far broader and more comprehensive than the religious right to “worship,” to which the president grudgingly acquiesces.
The organization is free to exercise its beliefs. The employee is not infringed upon in any way because she too has the right of free exercise of religion.
The right of the individual does not come into conflict with the right of the organization. The individual can move on if they are conflicted. But moreover – and this is perhaps the most important point – the individual can assume personal responsibility, instead of waiting to be hand-fed.
i'm wrapping it up now…
That the individual making up today's society refuses to accept responsbility for his or her own needs, and instead waits, whines, or demands that another entity take on that responsibility for them, is the basic root of the problem.
That's how the government gained so much power in the first place. Demanding that someone else take care of this problem or that issue. Tyranny is born out of such weakness, and governmental edicts that strip people of their basic Constitutional rights are tyrannical.
I don't – really and truly don't – understand how anyone can defend tyranny.
_____
1. Yes, I know that Congress technically doesn't make "laws." They create legislation in the form of bills and those technically aren't laws until signed by the sitting President. I'm not going to get into splittyhairpoints right now because the legislation in question is now a law until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
