Wednesday, March 7, 2012

“Needful Things,” or “Birth Control Boogaloo”

Does the federal government, in its hotly contested plan to offer a national health insurance mandate, have the constitutional power and, frankly, the cajones to break a fundamental tenant of our society -- religious freedom? The debate rages on, fueled by rhetoric from pastors and congressmen that rally either side unto the day of reckoning. USA Today’s Editorial Board have one foot firmly planted in the conservative heartland, claiming that forcing employers who hold religious beliefs that do not allow the use of contraception to provide said contraception to their religiously diverse staff is a step too far. These shadowy, and apparently diverse, editors go on to claim that these rules, complete with exceptions for institutions that are entirely made up of individuals opposed to contraception, such as the Catholic Church, are an affront to the freedom to practice any religion, any way the practitioner sees fit.

I find this argument flaccid, at best. Freedom is the ability to choose how to live your life, not the ability to deny the choices of others. If an employer were to deny coverage of birth control, that employer would essentially be denying their employees the freedom of choice. It is true that the government wishes to deny that same “choice” -- namely, that employers would be required to offer birth control coverage, regardless of their own personal beliefs -- but that denial is in no way detrimental to the practice of religion, nor does it force immorality onto the employer. Even in the most extreme of circumstances, the enabler would most certainly be the federal government, and I think God would be sympathetic.

To be perfectly honest, I see no reason to articulate such one-sided rhetoric. These pieces are written solely for the benefit of those people who already agree with the opinion, especially in this instance, where so few facts are given, and the tone is that of moral outrage rather than logical reasoning. Likewise, the refuting editorial by Kathleen Sebelius was not written to change opinions, but to explain the reasoning behind the clause, which is common sense in the face of aggrieved morality, and that does not have a history of flowery outcomes. These pieces, that simmer the intricacies of moral topics down to a simple black and white argument, are the reason that we can no longer discuss politics or religion amongst polite company.

No comments:

Post a Comment