A few thoughts
- This is one of those "bad policy conflicts with bad policy" decisions that I have trouble getting excited about. The government should not be mandating tiny details of health insurance policies. On the flip side, personal religious beliefs should not trump the rule of law (example: the fact someone has a religion that says it is legal to beat his wife should not create an exception allowing spouse abuse).
- That being said, the case only seems legally difficult if one completely ignores the existence of the 1993 RFRA, which most on the Left seem to want to ignore.
- I have zero patience with the facile argument that corporations have no individual rights. Corporations are just assemblies of people. Our right to assembly should not cause us to lose our other rights. If I have freedom of speech as an individual, I don't give it up when I create a corporation.
- I am even more exhausted with the argument that opposing government subsidies of an activity is the same as opposing the activity itself. Though half the readers who see this post will assume that I am anti-abortion or anti-contraception, which I am not. (Update: This seems to be a prevalent argument today, though -- see here)
- The most ignored fact of this case in my mind is the absolute insanity of the government mandating that regular, predictable purchases be covered in an insurance policy. Intelligent health insurance policies should no more cover routine contraception than home insurance policies should cover the cost of light bulb replacements. Sure, I have no problem if some private person wanted such a policy and a private company offered one -- but mandating this craziness is just amazingly bad policy.
- If you really want to help women and reduce their net cost of contraception, stop requiring a prescription for certain contraceptives, like birth control pills.