I believe it didn’t go far enough…
Liberals are railing against the Supreme Court decision (after crowing about the one they made on the ACA), because they say it impacts women’s health. It’s really hard to raise this question, when the decision at hand approves the business to allow 16 forms of birth control, only banning those that would kill a potential human. Morning after pills.
That being said, what business is it of my employers to provide me sexual freedom? An employer is responsible to pay you for work done, and give you a certain amount of security regarding your health and welfare. Personally, medical coverage is a benefit, not an expectation. I’m glad I can buy good coverage through the group plan my employer offers. But it is not their responsibility to offer health care insurance to me. They could pay me better, and allow me to purchase my own, for example. I have worked as a contractor for companies, and not been offered health coverage, or offered inferior health coverage, or overpriced health coverage, and chosen to go it alone, even though I had a condition that put me in a higher premium bracket, and it was still cheaper than some that were offered. So while I think it’s great that many companies do offer health coverage to their employees, I don’t believe it’s their responsibility to do so.
Secondly, this decision does not prohibit women from going out and getting the pills (the left) says women want. It is available at most pharmacies, at about $50. I know, it makes sex more expensive. But that is as it should be. Sex has consequences, and people make mistakes. I know. I’m living with all mine. None of them involve having a child.
What the SCOTUS decided was that an employer is not responsible for someone’s irresponsibility when it is against the employer’s religious convictions. I heard arguments on TV saying that Jim Crow laws were, at one time “religious convictions”. And all I can say is-who’s to say? Is it for government to tell us what our religious convictions can and cannot be? If I want to discriminate against someone in my business, and I’m up front about it, what’s wrong? It’s a business decision, such as the decision to sell exclusively kosher food, or hal-el food. Every business has a target consumer. So why can’t I target Jews, or Muslims, or Christians? Why can’t I say “I’m Orthodox, and fundamentally opposed to Catholics”? I can require gentlemen to wear ties, and ladies to wear dresses. But I can’t decide whom I will serve? I mean, I believe it’s self-limiting to do so, honestly. I want, if I’m a business owner, as much business to flow in as I can handle. I don’t want to limit or exclude anyone. But if I wanted to, isn’t it my right? I make decisions I believe will benefit my business all the time, if I’m a business man. So then, if my religion requires that I abstain from meat on Friday, I can also only serve fish in the cafeteria on Fridays. So, if my religion says that killing unborn babies is wrong, I can tell people when I hire them, that health coverage at this company does not include “morning after” pills.
A similar case has been brought up in the diocese of Oakland. Teachers in diocesan schools are required to sign a contract that says they will live the faith and morals, and teach the faith and morals, of the Catholic Church. And a few have refused to agree. That’s their prerogative-they can go work somewhere else. But it seems fair to expect employees that work for an entity that espouses a certain belief to also share that belief. I mean, if you work Clorox, wouldn’t you use products made by Clorox?