Indulge me please, as this is my first diary.
I don't want to look like I'm busting on men in general, but I do think that it would be helpful to examine a piece of legislation like the Blunt amendment in light of how it would impact the whole population, not just women. I wonder if we could put this forward as something that would impact decisions about health care that men would also find distressing, would we see more people taking action against passage of similar measures.
We hear so much about the issue of birth control and women's reproductive services, but I have been wondering about what other forms of health care could be impacted if employers are allowed to refuse to provide specific health services on moral grounds. Viagra and other ED drugs are a common example, and they do act as a parallel to birth control in some ways. But I think a more interesting example would be circumcision.
In my scenario an employer could oppose circumcision for any number of reasons. The person having the procedure is not old enough to provide consent, the procedure is cruel and controversial, it is only done for cosmetic reasons, it may improve sexual function in some way (which employer finds morally repugnant) or it may decrease the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases or hpv-related penile cancer (which the employer could argue aids in promoting promiscuity).
What I like about this as an example is that can be a hot button issue for the people involved in the decision, there are multiple social/ emotional/ medical arguments for and against the procedure, and I think most people would agree that it is a decision traditionally left to the parents of the child involved and not mandated by any government entity.
So what happens when the employer refuses to cover the procedure. Employee X has a baby boy, and feels deeply that there are legitimate reasons for having the child circumcised. But maybe they don't realize until after the delivery that they'll have to pay full price for a procedure they thought would be covered, and with no coverage the parents can't afford it. I think everyone agrees deferring the procedure until some further date when the parents have different coverage is not an acceptable choice.
It's not a perfect example, but it was the best I could do so far. I'd love to hear whether people are thinking about similar examples, and what they are.
I imagine that when politicians write this kind of legislation they make the assumption that the 'morals' they are referring to are judeo-christian morals. What happens when a non-christian employer refuses to cover a procedure that is necessary according to the christian employee's religious belief? Whose morality trumps the other? What an absolutely insane can of worms this would turn out to be.