First, to correct the esteemed gentleman from Florida, and whatever region would like to claim Mr. Reilly, this isn’t about tax dollars going to pay for contraception. The law in question is a mandate that companies that offer benefits have to include contraception as part of a women’s health care package. There is no mandate that the woman in question actually use it…or that the company has to even offer benefits of any kind, only that those that chose to offer benefits have to make it an option. No tax dollars involved.
Maybe enforcement. But that's a paperwork thing.
Maybe enforcement. But that's a paperwork thing.
But let's play devil's advocate. That really wasn't meant to be the pun I see it is now. But if this whole dust up were about tax dollars, this boils down to the government paying for something one group of Americans doesn’t approve of. Which would make this different from any number of government programs how? There are people who protest the military, but pay taxes to support it. Do they now get to opt out? What would make either this program so special or the people who protest it so special that they should suddenly merit particular attention? Do we going forward have to have a unanimous decision on everything tax dollars pay for?
That 28 states already have this mandate...and that those separately don't amount to an attack on religion seems to have been overlooked. But when the sitting President suggests it suddenly it's the most vile concept. That kind of posturing lends itself to the idea that this really isn't about religion.
When the church operates a business, open to the public, it becomes just that, a business. And while we can exempt a religious organization from a lot a laws, well, how much exemption does the church get? Are they exempt from criminal laws as well, if it infringes on their beliefs? Are these exceptions only applicable to Catholics? Can Protestants get an exception? Wiccans? How about Muslims?
This really isn't about religion, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment