This all scares the almighty fuck out of me.
While I don't agree in fact I do agree in principle...why should someone be forced to have their insurance cover something they find immoral?
If you are an employer, you need to follow the ADA, OSHA rules, minimum wage laws, contribute payroll taxes to SSI, etc. There are many obligations the government puts on you. You have to be non-discriminatory in hiring, regardless of your beliefs. However, the church is permitted to discriminate against women being priests (something that ain't gonna change, by the way - married priests we may see, but not women priests). What's the distinction the government makes between sexual discrimination being permitted in selecting its priests, but not being permitted in selecting its other employees? I don't know, but I know there's a line that's drawn.
So I would say that I disagree with the letter writer in principle, but maybe not in fact. I think the distinction needs to be made, and that the courts are the correct place to make it. I don't know in this particular case I'd agree - there's plenty of insurance plans out there, offering plenty of options, and I always tend to side with the private agreement between the employer and the employed, seeing both as free agents. However, I believe there needs to be a line, and that this ruling isn't entirely inappropriate.
Insurance is covered by ISO standards, and is almost always a contract of adhesion. Adding specific religious alterations, in addition to being suspect under many discrimination laws, creates an untenable situation in which an employee is bound ex post facto to a contract for which he had no ability to negotiate, and which is materially non-standard.
In other words... it fucks up the free market.
Come on guys we all know that condoms and the pill are medical necessities. They're taken in order to heal an ailment. Oh wait.
Actually, Jayson, for an ex-girlfriend of mine, the Pill WAS a medical necessity. And she wasn't alone in that condition - lots of women suffer from it.
WF
Yes Wes, a good friend of mine was on the "pill" for endrometriocis (sp?) and it was a medical necessity. I am of course refering to the perscription of which catholic charities objects; elective.
These judges are practicing a theocracy of a different sort. Imposition nonetheless.
I think it's silly that any organization that offers insurance should provide any procedure that's merely elective.
I'd like lasic surgery and white teeth paid for just like the next person, but I doubt I'd win in court.
Jayson,
Right now Federal Law requires that IF a company wants to create a tax qualified 401(K) plan they must comply with certain established rules.
California Law has something similar for medical insurance.
If religious groups don't want a tax qualified plan, I bet they might be able to offer them, without writing them off their taxes as an expense.
Other laws also may take precedence where medical procedures are to be covered equally under the law. Would religions that don't allow blood transfusions or organ transplants be required to cover them? I say yes.
What Brian said.
These are the laws of the land - if the State of California requires that the Pill be covered; if you want that government-sponsored plan, you cover the Pill, regardless of context. Don't want to cover the Pill? Don't expect the plan.
WF
The problem with talking about medical "necessities" is that the game has changed. There are many treatments for things that used to be signs of age. For instance, erectile dysfunction and depression now have commonly prescribed treatments. I'm not trying to oversimplify here--I think this question is actually pretty complex, but any time you see an insurance company cover viagra but not the pill, you're going to have some questions.
That's another interesting point - do these same church groups have a problem with the insurance covering Viagra? If they DON'T, then they're two-faced. Pure and simple.
WF
I don't know all the facts of the case but I think it should be each individual company, org, etc's decision to decide what is covered and not covered especially if it is something like birth control which is against the organization's religion. You do have a choice to work for that company or not...
Just like all those people who were locked in after being forced to log out at a Wal-Mart can work somewhere else, right?
Oh, wait. Wal-Mart drove all the other stores out of town. So they have the labor market pretty much all to themselves.
I, personally, encourage people to shop Costco.
WF
Commenting by HaloScan
