Here's another Question Not Asked Post, this time on the whole contraception debate. I wasn't actually going to blog about this, but this topic seems to keep coming up, so I've got to take some more time to vent.
A while back, Darrell Issa held a hearing on the contraception topic. Between the Democrat's outrage about the framing of the topic, and the Republican's interest in pleadingly only the positive aspects of their case, there wasn't a whole lot of substance actually covered in the hearing. (Which you can watch: here and here.
Had I been there, I'd have asked the following questions:
- What are the limits, if any, of the conscious clause in this context? For example, what if a Church refuses to pay taxes on the grounds that they can't support war? Or, what if a Church demands that they be able to practical corporal punishment that the county considers child abuse?
- Consider the example raised by Sandra Fluke: a woman needs contraception to prevent a medical condition, her doctor is more than willing to prescribe the medication, yet her "employer" (in this case, she was a student) refuses to cover it. Due to the cost of the treatment, the woman can not afford to pay out of pocket for the prescription, and therefore her health suffers. Is it fair to describe this as a scenario where health care choices are being made by the doctor, patient and employer? Is this an acceptable standard to allow?
- I was surprised to note in the testimony that all members of the clergy were in agreement: funding contraception through taxes was acceptable and a non-issue. Being that this is the case, why is indirectly funding contraception through taxes acceptable, while indirectly funding it through an insurance company is considered an assult on first amendment rights?
What I wouldn't give to hear an actual discussion of this issue, rather than war of talking points.
No comments:
Post a Comment