In high court case, religion mustn’t dictate health care: #tellusatoday0
There should be no exception for care based on the religious position of an employer, which has zero relation to the health needs of a covered individual. If religion should be a measure of whether care is given, then a business owner who is a Christian Scientist should be free not to provide coverage that includes invasive surgery or blood transfusions. Contraception is a health care issue between a patient and a doctor.
If you work for someone and they don’t provide what you want, then go work for someone else. There is your freedom.
The Little Sisters of the Poor aren’t being forced to provide anything, but if they do provide insurance they have to provide good insurance that covers things employees may need. The employer shouldn’t get to decide what they will and won’t pay for.
I’m sure if an employer decided prostate cancer specifically wasn’t covered, some may feel like that’s unfair to men.
There is no compelling reason for the federal government to promote contraception or pregnancy.
—Eugene Patrick Devany
Letter edited for clarity and style
While it is within the rights of an organization not to offer services that contradict religious beliefs, the organization is not entitled to stand in the way of those who wish to access services in some other way.