BR, I gotta disagree here.
With what? That ML suggested his SIL is stupid, or that ML "argued" by repeating his opinion, regardless of what the other person said? 'Cuz that's about all I said in this thread.
Not a catholic, SWMBO is on birth control, no real dog in the fight on this one. But those people, employed by religious organizations, made a decision to seek employment there. I know, I know, tough economic times, no other jobs, yes, it sucks out there. But, at the time they were hired, they knew they were working for a religious organization. They also should have known that their insurance did not cover birth control, and I'm betting that the exclusion is strictly for birth control being used for birth control. I bet that if it was for another medically necessary reason, it would be covered. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE FACT. Just putting that bit out there.
Having said all that, these people entered into a free-will agreement with their employer. As part of that agreement, their employer agreed to provide certain benefits and wages. These were known by the potential employees prior to entering said agreement. Now, they're whinging that "it's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair". "They should have to pay for my birth control, and who gives a [censored] about their religious beliefs! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE THEM PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL!!!!"
If they want free birth control so badly, go work for an employer that doesn't have a religious objection to birth control. Or attend a school that doesn't have a religious objection to birth control.
And no, I don't think that they SHOULD have to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Any more than a Muslim SHOULD eat pork. Or a Jew SHOULD wear a cross.
Ok.
Um.
I didn't actually mention any of that stuff, so I'm not sure what you were refuting here?
But, if you are interested in my opinion, then basically it comes down to whether one finds it acceptable to pay women less than men for the same work. It's an equal pay for equal work scenario. I don't find it acceptable for an employer to ostensibly pay the same amount of money for the same job to women as they pay to men, except for that the pay for women does not include a major item of routine health care that requires an office visit and a prescription (which pretty much is what differentiates it from say, toothpaste or athlete's foot spray) and the pay for men includes all major routine health care (that requires a medical professional's intervention, etc, see above).
Stuff paid for by an insurance company is not "free" stuff. When the insurance is a benefit of employment, the stuff received is usually a combination of stuff received in exchange for premium payments deducted from one's paycheck and stuff received in exchange for premiums paid by one's employer--as a part of a benefits package that is a part of one's pay for doing the work. It's not free. When you get on the phone with your insurer to argue over some billing screw-up that is costing you money, are you doing that because you want to get whatever service/drug for "free" or because you are entitled to it in exchange for work performed or payments tendered?
So, it all comes down to whether one considers it appropriate for the fedgov to require that women be paid the same amount as men for the same work. There is a legitimate difference of opinion on this point that tends to split along the line between liberal/conservative. However, the argument that women who take this sort of job should suck it up because they knew it was not fair is pretty silly. Thanks for noticing that women's lives, like everybody else's, are not fair. But in the immortal words of Calvin "Why can't it ever be unfair in my favor?" Women, just like people, tend to try to make our lives a bit less unfair for us. Wanting to get paid the same money for doing the same stuff is a far cry from whining for free stuff. And this pretty much comes under the heading of the principle behind the post-civil war amendments: It is simply not enough for gov't to say "Hey, y'all are free, go forth and prosper." When there's institutionalized discrimination denying equality to a specific class of people on a fairly broad scale, saying they're free to work where they want, study where they want, live where they want, is meaningless so long as those institutions persist in denying that class of persons equal--or even reasonable--access to work, study, or reside.
Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale, but the same principle applies. The "and be glad you have a job [that pays you less because you have women's health needs they don't like]" is pretty disingenuous. One is permitted to want, and demand, what one wills from his employer. At my last job, I was very glad to have a job, but pushed my employer pretty hard to keep the office open later in the evening, to make my life more convenient. I was glad to have a job, but appreciated it when a colleague who was in a slightly more secure position agitated for overtime pay. If one believes that fedgov interference to ensure equal pay for equal work is acceptable, then absolutely, agitating for this particular benefit is a legitimate expression of a reasonable and ethical desire.
Heck, I'm glad to have a roof over my head, but I want my landlord to clean my funky carpet. I'm entitled under my lease, and therefore I want it. I'm glad I have a left arm, but want to have less pain using it. I'm not entitled to it, but I want it, and I'm going to do what I can to get it. People strive for stuff. People want more than what we have. It's what landed men on the moon, it's what settled the West, and it's what built this weird place we call the USA. It's what makes us people. Even those of us who have vaginas.
And speaking of having vaginas, I like to use mine. To have sex. Kind of like most of you like to have sex. But that's utterly irrelevant. In fact sex in general is utterly irrelevant. There's an unequal benefit and there's a religious principle. That those two things involve sex does not matter. The issue isn't the sex, it's the unequal employment benefits. But as it was raised, so sure, I'll go there. Seems that according to the Catholic Church (and most others), having sex is pretty much a duty spouses owe to each other. It's also a pretty vital component of most non-sucky spousal relationships. Do you gentlemen really want women to stop having sex? Cuz you'd get tired of jacking off pretty quick, one would think, no? And if you don't actually want women to stop having sex, why do you keep saying so? Why is this a part of the issue? Seems to me that if a woman wishes to not pay for birth control to keep her pay (as close as possible to) equal to her male colleagues', she simply needs to insist he use a condom. Personally, aside from the taste, I have no issue with condoms, but haven't met too many guys who really enjoy them. And the latex taste issue is resolved pretty easily, but again, have yet to meet a guy who thinks my solution is a particularly great plan. So, I'm assuming that most of you do actually want your wives, significant others, less-significant others, etc., to use the sort of birth control that y'know, doesn't generally decrease your enjoyment of sex.
But of course, there are principles at stake way bigger than whether you like to wrap it or not. It's about issues of government and religion and other big issues. And reasonable minds can differ on that point. Especially since it's really about equitable application of job benefits, and not about sex at all.
So, why, for the love of the gods and all that is holey, why have so many men made this about smearing women who like/have too much sex? Why has this become about jokes about aspirin between the knees and name-calling? What purpose does it serve?
In a democratic republic, the rights of two parties to be free to do as they will tend to bump heads an awful lot. This is another instance of that. No more, no less. Equal pay v. religious freedom. Ok, so it's a biggie. But sluts? "Keep your pants on"? "Any woman who spends more than $3000 on birth control is a slut"? "whinging"?
Double-yew-tee-eff, gentlemen. Please find some civility and use it, because throwing your weight around about how much more sexual freedom you ought to have than women is a-stupid, b-incorrect,
C-NOT THE *expletive deleted*ING ISSUE.PS: Employer-sponsored health insurance is a stupid, expensive, foolish system that frustrates small business development, perpetuates terrible, abusive marriages, ties adult children to the apron strings for years, and leads to insane waste, not to mention a whole slew of interesting constitutional issues. And it was brought to you by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service. Imagine my surprise. Best answer to this whole mess, and a whole bunch of others, is get rid of the government-imposed economic benefit to employers for offering insurance.
You're all so busy railing against gov't in health care, without acknowledging fully that gov't is neck-deep in it, manipulating it and screwing the market around, inflating prices and turning people into drones tied to a paternal employer with its hand so deep in our health that we don't dare start a small business, find a different job, explore better options for us and our families, lest the punishment be death or disability through medical neglect.
It does seem to me that something could be worked out with deductibles and what-not to enable women to not have to pay more out of pocket than men without their employers purchasing something they don't want to purchase. And I double-dog-dare you to call me a liberal because I want to gov't to stop throwing health care right into employers' laps
