Judge Rules Moral Objectors Don’t Need to Provide Contraceptive AccessPosted: September 1, 2015
Over the past few years we have seen countless employers seek a so-called religious exemption from providing insurance coverage for contraception. What followed has been a tough ongoing debate between religious liberty of employers and the individual rights of women. The debate lead to a number of solutions and it is now possible for some for-profit businesses and a variety of non-profit entities with religious affiliations to receive exemptions from the contraception mandate on account of religious beliefs. While this restricts women’s access to affordable contraception, most employers must still follow the mandate. Case settled, right? Wrong.
A federal judged ruled this week that employers who provide insurance coverage do not need to provide that coverage for contraception if they morally oppose it. On paper, the religious freedom argument works; providing coverage for contraception might violate a person’s faith. But moral freedom? An employer could morally argue that women should only have sex when trying to have a baby and otherwise should abstain. An employer could morally argue that taking any prescription medication is not natural and wholly oppose it. An employer could morally argue that women should not be employed in the labor force. These are ridiculous grounds on which to oppose a law. How many other laws do you see with moral exemptions?
Millions of women across the United States rely on various methods of contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy and help plan when to begin or expand their family. Millions rely on methods like the birth control pill to regulate their periods and alleviate related health concerns unrelated to pregnancy. The MORAL action would be to allow these women to improve their health. The MORAL action would be to help these women prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. The MORAL action would be to allow women to choose when they’re ready to have a family.