My problem is should someone be able to pick and choose parts of a law not only do they not want to obey for religious and other reasons but also deny employees? In other words, does religion trump law? It seems to me that the proper approach would be to get congress to revoke those parts of the law.
The case in point involves the owners of a company, on the basis of it is against their religion, objecting to health insurance companies having to fund the costs of contraceptives (and abortions) in ACA for their employees. In addition there are others who may not be against abortions or contraceptives, but object to having to participate in funding them for others. I grant all this, but why not get congress to modify the law? To the best of my knowledge there has been no attempt to change this part of the ACA law by either political party.
Please note that religion trumping law only seems to work if you are a major religion in the country. Mormons are not legally able to practice polygamy and the Native American Church cannot legally smoke Peyote though I think the laws against each of these things are rarely enforced, mainly only if they involve minors.
Judge Gorsuch's opion are expressed in the following quote (in italics):
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion in that case in which he outlined what he saw as a moral dilemma facing the family that owns Hobby Lobby and a related company if they were forced to pay for certain contraceptives.
The law requires companies to support payments for "drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg," Gorsuch wrote. They believe that "violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows."
The Supreme Court later ruled that employers who object on such grounds do not have to pay, but their insurance still must make contraception available, ultimately reimbursed by the federal government. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-gorsuch-case-review-shows-hes-no-crusader-082501382--politics.html)
The most vocal group against contraception (and abortion) has been Roman Catholics (Judge Gorsuch is member) that comprise about 22% of Americans; however, they have more recently been joined by many Southern Baptists* and other members of the religious right. They particularly object to contraceptives that interrupt a fertilized egg from adhering to the womb wall (the defiition of when pregnancy begins). The time between fertilization and natural adherence is several days and can even exceed 10 days. I presume most fertilized eggs are naturally expelled which is of no concern. I feel that giving a fertilized egg "personhood" is, well, silly.
On the other hand, I find it hard to oppose prohibition of abortions after 5 mo, At about 22 wks at which some premature births have survived, though few (maybe about 25% using treatment techniques like ventilation, intubation and surfactant) and at great cost (as nearly as I can tell, costs may be something like a half million dollars or more). Many weeks are spent in intensive care followed by further stay in the hospital. (http://www.newsweek.com/babies-born-22-weeks-can-survive-medical-care-new-study-finds-329518).
Many, me included, find it strange that people like Judge Gorsuch and others believe in the sanctity of life until birth and then you are on your own. Judge Gorsuch does not oppose the death penalty, for example (I don't not either except I think it should only be for verdicts that are "beyond the shadow of doubt.")
* https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/faith-culture/16187-southern-baptist-attitudes-changing-on-birth-control
No comments:
Post a Comment