We are the 99%

November 27, 2013

I have a question!


I was half watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC tonight and he was arguing with some anti choice guy about the Affordable Care Act provision which requires employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. I suppose this came up because the Supreme Court decided to take on Hobby Lobby's (and other for profit companies') objections to this provision.

Locally, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Diocese of Erie and several affiliated nonprofit groups have recently won an injunction against having to follow that same provision. Please note that the diocese themselves didn't need to follow that part of the act--only their nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities--you know, the ones that take taxpayer funding (and lots of it).

But Hayes, and no one else I see on my TV set asks the one question of the opponents of the provision that I want to hear. It goes something like this:
Sir/Madame: The Affordable Care Act requires larger companies and nonprofits to provide health insurance to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. The law requires companies and nonprofits to provide a paycheck to people who work for them who, in turn, may or may not end up using it to cover contraception. What is the fucking difference in terms of "morality"?
OK. For the sake of television they can leave out the "fucking" part of my question. But, seriously, what is the fucking difference? How are they not paying for contraceptives either way? In neither case are they actually being forced to purchase the contraceptives themselves and put it in the hands of their employees. In both cases they would be made to follow laws that everyone else must follow in terms of compensation to their employees. In both cases their employees end up getting birth control, and in neither case do they get to stone their employees to death (for the moment anyway) for being "immoral"--or for as Bishop Zubik and Cardinal Timothy Dolan have called it, "evil" and "facilitating scandal."

They are simply making it more expensive for their employees to get the birth control. If they really, really cared about the "morality" of their employees or being "pro life," shouldn't they fire their immoral workers? Of course they can't do that because they'd run out of employees as 62% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method.

And not having a ready pool of low paid women to exploit and impose your own religious beliefs on employ, my friends, would be bad for business.

2 comments:

Zeus0209 said...

I suppose the tea partiers, the good bishop and the cardinal would prefer to endorse ACA riders that reimburse for anti nonreproductive-intentioned sex therapies for the populous. Oh wait, I'm sorry, that's what the priests are for. I guess that's why tax exemptions for religious groups are in place. So everyone (everyone having sex simply for the sake of having sex, that is) should just go to their (justly financed) priest more often to help them stop. Unless of course, you're gay. Or not christian. But then your soul is condemned anyway, so why wait till the afterlife; just start the punishment now. The only remaining trouble group left having non-reproductive relations are little boys. And since they can't get pregnant, problem solved. This whole ACA thing, its just silly.

Maria said...

Actually, the diocese reject having to do the paperwork for any rider because, you know, women are dirty, dirty sluts.