A GENTLE WARNING: This discussion contains ideas and issues that some of my tender readers might find objectionable. I'd probably have to rate it PG-13. Just so you know... :)
So, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled that a small Lutheran school in Michigan has the right to discriminate against its disabled employees, as long as they can be classified as "ministers" (wink-wink.) If you haven't heard of Hosanna-Tabor, you can catch up here.
The case is being widely hailed as a victory for "religious freedom" and the First Amendment. Methinks the celebration is both premature and ill-advised.
Oddly, just days after the SCOTUS decision, the news has turned to a decision by President Obama's administration to deny exemptions from federal law for religiously-affiliated institutions (such as universities and hospitals) whose practice it is to deny employees prescription drug coverage that includes contraceptives for women.
Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has clarified that churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice. (see article here)
But the "connection" of churches and houses of worship to the institutions that they help to sponsor (like the Hosanna-Tabor school, for instance,) does not qualify them to withhold the coverage from their more "secular" employees.
Of course, all manner of hell is breaking loose in the dioceses and other seats of ecclesiastical power across America. We can be sure that challenges are forthcoming, particularly given the SCOTUS ruling with regard to Hosanna-Tabor.
The thing that strikes me as particularly vexing with this whole situation is the fact that these same potentates of priestly piety most likely would NEVER think of excluding coverage for a man's Viagra® prescription on moral grounds. That would violate some sort of right to access, I suppose, and would just be a real downer for the dudes!
So a man can be reimbursed to get it up and impregnate the companion of his choice -- but that same companion cannot be reimbursed in order to exercise control over her own body and prevent conception against her will.
What's wrong with this picture, people?
So, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled that a small Lutheran school in Michigan has the right to discriminate against its disabled employees, as long as they can be classified as "ministers" (wink-wink.) If you haven't heard of Hosanna-Tabor, you can catch up here.
The case is being widely hailed as a victory for "religious freedom" and the First Amendment. Methinks the celebration is both premature and ill-advised.
Oddly, just days after the SCOTUS decision, the news has turned to a decision by President Obama's administration to deny exemptions from federal law for religiously-affiliated institutions (such as universities and hospitals) whose practice it is to deny employees prescription drug coverage that includes contraceptives for women.
Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has clarified that churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice. (see article here)
But the "connection" of churches and houses of worship to the institutions that they help to sponsor (like the Hosanna-Tabor school, for instance,) does not qualify them to withhold the coverage from their more "secular" employees.
Of course, all manner of hell is breaking loose in the dioceses and other seats of ecclesiastical power across America. We can be sure that challenges are forthcoming, particularly given the SCOTUS ruling with regard to Hosanna-Tabor.
The thing that strikes me as particularly vexing with this whole situation is the fact that these same potentates of priestly piety most likely would NEVER think of excluding coverage for a man's Viagra® prescription on moral grounds. That would violate some sort of right to access, I suppose, and would just be a real downer for the dudes!
So a man can be reimbursed to get it up and impregnate the companion of his choice -- but that same companion cannot be reimbursed in order to exercise control over her own body and prevent conception against her will.
What's wrong with this picture, people?
