Time: “Our social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us”
Of course, this is all about the contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient mandate
(Time Magazine – Erika Christakis) There was lots of excitable talk last week about birth control, with President Obama dialing back his initial plan for mandating contraceptive coverage to exempt employers who object to such coverage on religious grounds. In those cases, the health-insurance provider, rather than the employer, will be on the hook to pay for the services. Tellingly, health-insurance companies seem quite happy with this compromise, knowing, as they do, that paying for contraceptives is a lot less costly than paying for pregnancies and neonatal care.
As Ed Morrissey points out from a Hill article, insurers are oddly unenthusiastic about providing completely “free” contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Because there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAFL. But, we all know that women were unable to get contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients prior to ……. what’s that? They were available? It’s just that people had to bear an actual cost for their sexual romps? Who knew?
People who cry moral indignation about government-mandated contraception coverage appear unwilling to concede that the exercise of their deeply held convictions might infringe on the rights of millions of people who are burdened by unplanned pregnancy or want to reduce abortion or would like to see their tax dollars committed to a different purpose.
Got that? In Liberal World, people having to actually use their own money instead of having Someone Else bear the full cost infringes on the rights of millions. Personal responsibility is a foreign concept in Liberal World.
Why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control coverage trump a society’s collective imperative to reduce unintended pregnancy? Should employers be allowed to withhold a polio vaccine or cataract surgery or safe working conditions on similar “moral” grounds?
Well, for one thing, there is that pesky little phrase in the 1st Amendment that restricts Central Government from passing laws that restrict the free practice of religion. Do liberals ever read the Constitution? As for the polio vaccine et. all, that’s a nice try, but, no Catholic organization is doing that, nor are they denying contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients: people can still get them, but, the organizations are refusing to pay for them.
We all enjoy the multifold benefits of a plural society, but the social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us. Most Americans choose to live with this trade-off because, on balance, the benefits of being part of a civil society far outweigh the costs…..
See? You must put up with decisions that morally offend you, all for some social contract that doesn’t actually exist in the Constitution, even if the decisions violate said Constitution. However, the debate is not really about contraception: it’s about the Central Government forcing decisions, laws, and regulations on the American People which violate their consciences, violate the Constitution, and violate their liberty. By Ms. Chrisakis’ definition, we simply have to put up with policies that, say, have put America on the path to economic shutdown in 2027. That force us to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax. That puts Federal Nannies in schools not only monitoring what children eat, but, force them to eat a different lunch, highlighting that Mommy is a Bad Mommy. That waste enormous amounts of taxpayer money of post-campaign kickbacks. That provide more stringent rights to some over the rights of others.
Ms. Chrisakis misses the point that our rights do not derive from Government: the federal government was given specific powers, and all others were reserved for the States and the People.