In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

You never should’ve opened that door…

EG

Employers can refuse to provide coverage for contraception on moral as well as religious grounds.

My reaction to this is slightly more complex than it might be normally. I certainly am in favor of demystifying and debunking the idea that religious beliefs have a special centrality and fervency and we atheists simply can’t imagine as we go about our stolid, prosaic, immoral lives.

However.

I’m in favor of doing that not by elevating every moral belief one might have to the protected status that articles of faith currently hold, but by holding the devout to the same standards the rest of us have to meet. And I still find it absurd to say that companies, or even not-for-profits can hold moral or religious beliefs. They’re not human entities. They don’t have consciousness. They don’t have rights. The end. I find it almost as absurd as I find this quotation:

[The group] opposes methods of contraception that it says can amount to abortion, including hormonal products, intrauterine devices and emergency contraceptives. Many scientists disagree that those methods of contraception are equivalent to abortion.

One of these groups is qualified to make statements about how contraception works. One of these groups’ positions is, therefore, correct. The NYT bending over backwards to avoid making a fact-based assertion–and the courts’ refusal to take actual facts into account–is deeply disturbing to me. Contraception does not cause abortion. Vaccines do not cause autism. The world is not flat. There are such things as facts.

And when a humanities professor has to make that point, you know we’re in deep shit.

13 thoughts on You never should’ve opened that door…

  1. The link at the top of the page goes to a New York Times article which some of us might not have access to, or might not have wanted to spend one of our 10 (?) free articles/month on that link, had we been warned in advance. It would be nice to let people know before clicking, that it’s NYT, and to summarize in enough detail that it isn’t necessary to go there.

    1. There’s a one-sentence summary as the first sentence of the post, and in all the browsers I’ve used, if you hover the cursor over a link before clicking it, it will show you the URL it goes to. I also mention that it’s a NYT article later in the post. I’m afraid that’s the best I’m likely to do consistently on an off-the-cuff immediate response to a new article.

    2. Tedious, but here are a couple of ways to get around the paywall:

      1) Use multiple browsers. Once you reach your monthly limit on Firefox, go to Chrome. Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of browsers.

      2) Sign up for Twitter. Tweet the link to the article you want to read. Click on the tweet. Read the article. Delete tweet if desired.

  2. And I still find it absurd to say that companies, or even not-for-profits can hold moral or religious beliefs. They’re not human entities. They don’t have consciousness. They don’t have rights. The end.

    I agree that companies should be required to provide contraception, but I think this point is totally wrong, especially when it comes to small sole-proprietor or family businesses. I mean, yes, in the absolute literal sense the company has no moral beliefs, because it doesn’t have a nervous system, but neither does (say) a family, a religion, a country, or anything else aside from an actual human being.

    There’s not really much ethical difference between requiring someone to do something in their personal lives, and requiring them to do it in the one-person beach kiosk where they sell t-shirts. Again, I’m OK with the government forcing employers to cover contraceptives. But we should call it what it is.

    1. If it’s a one-person beach kiosk, they don’t have employees and they don’t have to cover anything. I just disagree. I don’t buy this “companies are people” schtick. They don’t have beliefs. A country doesn’t have beliefs either. A religion prescribes beliefs, but doesn’t actually believe anything, because it’s not a person. And therefore they don’t have rights to freedom of conscience or belief.

      1. If it’s a one-person beach kiosk, they don’t have employees and they don’t have to cover anything.

        One person at a time. The owner works an 8-hour shift and has two employees to cover the other 16 hours. It’s a 24-hour kiosk. Let’s assume I can craft the hypothetical situation such that it makes my point.

        And if you re-read my post, my argument isn’t about the specifics of health insurance, but rather your broader argument re: companies and ‘rights.’ According to you, there’s some sort of magical fundamental moral difference between requiring a company made up of one person (Jane) with no employees to do something, and making that Jane do that that. There isn’t.

        I just disagree. I don’t buy this “companies are people” schtick.

        Then thank goodness I never said they were!

        They don’t have beliefs. A country doesn’t have beliefs either. A religion prescribes beliefs, but doesn’t actually believe anything, because it’s not a person. And therefore they don’t have rights to freedom of conscience or belief.

        Yeah, you’re responding very ably to an argument some other person made, but not mine.

        My argument is the one in the post above- for very small businesses, such as sole-proprietorships or family businesses, there’s not much ethical difference between compelling an individual to do something as an individual and compelling that individual to do something on behalf of their company.

        For example; everything you said also applies to families. A family doesn’t believe anything, because it’s not a person. Therefore, families have no rights to freedom of conscience or belief. Therefore, there’s nothing wrong with a law forcing all families to attend Catholic mass, because no individuals are involved.

        Companies are made up of people. When you force a company to do something, what you’re actually doing is forcing someone who works for or owns that company to do something. Again, I agree that it’s OK to force people to cover contraceptives for their employees, because it’s just good public policy. But the whole “companies aren’t people, therefore there’s absolutely no reason to consider things like free speech or freedom of religion at all when regulating them” position is silly.

      3. I think if we say the government requires companies to cover contraception, that’s saying a group of people (i.e. the government) believes X.

        So, sure that can be violating your company’s beliefs. Fine. But what I find interesting is that religious groups don’t hold their own groups/companies accountable for those beliefs. I mean, it’s not like they actually require people to not use contraception to use their group/company.

        1. A government is more than just a group of people–and which people? The functionaries who carry out the decisions? The legislators? Which ones?

          We have all kinds of laws making a company a separate legal and financial entity from the people who own it and run it–that’s why if a company goes bankrupt its creditors can no longer show up and seize the owners’ personal assets. Now, all of a sudden, they’re the same again? No.

          They hold employees accountable when they can. Teachers get fired from Catholic schools for being pregnant out of wedlock, for example. If employers weren’t prevented from doing more by unions and laws, they would (look at the rules for teachers before the AFT, for example.).

      4. It’s not forcing them to do anything, given that insurance is part of my compensation package. Meaning, it’s payment for labor. A company telling me I can’t have insurance that provides bc is akin to a company telling me I can’t spend my money on bc. And, in my case, I pay 400 a month for insurance so it’s literally telling me what I can buy with my money. Telling a company to stop it is not forcing them to provide anything.

      5. It’s not forcing them to do anything, given that insurance is part of my compensation package. Meaning, it’s payment for labor. A company telling me I can’t have insurance that provides bc is akin to a company telling me I can’t spend my money on bc. And, in my case, I pay 400 a month for insurance so it’s literally telling me what I can buy with my money. Telling a company to stop it is not forcing them to provide anything.

        I agree. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to be responding to, since I said:

        And if you re-read my post, my argument isn’t about the specifics of health insurance, but rather your broader argument re: companies and ‘rights.’

      6. Its responding to the general conversation. Just like EGs post was addressing the fact that companies here have been given rights of personhood in the courts, and those against bc use that type of argument she was addressing and calling out.

        They complain the government is forcing them to pay for bc. Which is false. The government is merely preventing them from forcing me to spend my money on what the company approves.

        To sum up, a company doesn’t hold beliefs and neither the company not the individual employer are being forced to do anything.

        This is a statement. Not an argument and has nothing to do with anything you said specifically, other than to add to the general conversation.

  3. I think Judge Leon is actually making a really important point here:

    “The characteristic that warrants protection — an employment relationship based in part on a shared objection to abortifacients — is altogether separate from theism. Stated differently, what H.H.S. claims to be protecting is religious beliefs, when it actually is protecting a moral philosophy about the sanctity of life.”

    Religious belief does not always require a belief in God and is not always based on a belief in God. Religious protection can be applied to moral objections that are not explicitly theist.

    I think that setting the precedent that moral objection and religious objection are equivalent in the context of legal protection because a specifically theist element is not required for religious practice is better than setting the precedent that religious views are only protected when theism is invoked.

    I agree with you EG, that it is stupid and unreasonable for a company to be allowed to set moral policy that exempts it from providing contraception to women. The policy is simply codified misogyny that allows any company to specifically discriminate against women if they feel inclined to do so.

    But isn’t there already mechanisms built into the ACA that provide for alternative coverage in the case of non-profits who object to contraception coverage in their insurance plans? I found this in the Hobby Lobby decision:

    In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a
    new, government-funded program in order to conclude
    that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means
    test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal
    an approach that is less restrictive than requiring
    employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their
    religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already
    established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations
    with religious objections. See supra, at 9–10, and nn. 8–9.
    Under that accommodation, the organization can selfcertify
    that it opposes providing coverage for particular
    contraceptive services. See 45 CFR §§147.131(b)(4), (c)(1);
    26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(a)(4), (b). If the organization
    makes such a certification, the organization’s insurance
    issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly
    exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health
    insurance coverage provided in connection with the group
    health plan” and “[p]rovide separate payments for any
    contraceptive services required to be covered” without
    imposing “any cost-sharing requirements . . . on the eligible
    organization, the group health plan, or plan participants
    or beneficiaries.” 45 CFR §147.131(c)(2); 26 CFR
    §54.9815–2713A(c)(2).38

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Comments are currently closed.