Like the moron I am, I’m once again embroiled in a “discussion” on Twitter. I put that in quotes because let’s face it — the very nature of Twitter makes reasoned debate or discussion impossible. It devolves into a series of bromides and platitudes hurled back and forth, with no actual illumination. Hell, “devolves” might be charitable, as it implies things started at a higher plane and then…well, devolved.
Anyway, the issue du jour is, of course, contraception, thanks to a boneheaded and nakedly misogynistic decision by SCOTUS.
Some people are saying this is no big deal. Contraception has not been outlawed or banned, they point out. It’s just that employers with certain religious beliefs no longer have to include it in their employees’ insurance plans. It’s still available, for God’s sake, so everyone just calm down!
Yeah, but… No.
I’m going to try to explain this as quickly as I can, in a way that is easy to follow.
Let’s pretend that you have an illness. And there is a very simple, safe, reliable, and legal medication or procedure that can help you.
But your employer has a religious objection to that medication or procedure. So even though insurance companies routinely and happily cover it…your boss doesn’t.
So now you have to go out-of-pocket to cover this expense. Even though you are paying (through payroll deductions) for health insurance. Even though you’re paying what everyone else pays for health insurance, you’re getting less. You have coverage that is crippled.
Is it crippled because you have a lousy job or live in a lousy area? Because your employer just can’t afford better?
No. It’s crippled because your boss has a religious sentiment that now impacts your life.
Let’s say that again: YOUR BOSS’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE IMPINGING ON YOUR LIFE.
Your boss goes to church on Sunday and kneels and prays, and because what he prays is a little different than what you pray, you get to lose some of your hard-earned money.
Again, toss contraception out. Imagine it is any other medical issue. Would you accept that? Should you accept that?
No. And hell no.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court was careful to note that its declaration does not apply to vaccines or blood transfusions, two other potential areas where medical necessity could — and, if history is any indicator, will — intersect with religious beliefs.
Lest you have notions to the contrary, those exemptions are incontrovertible proof that this ruling has nothing to do with religious freedom. If it did, then the ruling would apply universally.
No, this is about sex.
It’s about fucking, plain and simple, and paternalistically punishing women who dare to have sex without wanting to get pregnant. It is, therefore, about the very opposite of religious freedom. It is imposing someone else’s religious views on you.
And that, my friends, isn’t just vile. It’s also indefensible.