The US Supreme Court says it will hear a case challenging the requirement that employer-provided health insurance cover contraceptives even if the boss' religion opposes birth control.
This begs a variety of questions of the internal logic and legal logic of letting bosses impose their religious beliefs on workers.
First, the most basic question is what do the bosses claim and what does our legal system say about an employee cashing a paycheck on Friday and using some of that money to buy a package of condoms or a prescription of a drug that can prevent conception. Do the bosses claim they have a right to forbid employees from using their pay in such a way? What does the law say about that? If the bosses aren't claiming this, on what basis do they claim they can exclude contraceptives from government requirements for health insurance? If the bosses claim they do have the right to forbid employees to spend their pay on perfectly legal products, shouldn't the government be telling them they don't know what they're talking about?
Suppose for the sake of argument, an anti-contraceptive boss was paying employees at the government-required minimum wage and that boss could prove that a worker getting 100% of the minimum wage could afford to buy contraceptives but a worker getting 90% of the minimum wage could not afford contraceptives. Would the government be required to let that boss pay 90% of the minimum wage in order to prevent the workers from using their pay in a way contrary to the boss' religious beliefs?
Does a boss whose religious beliefs forbid him to have blood transfusions or other medical procedures have the right to exclude these types of medical care from employer-provided health insurance, too?
Doctors can prescribe a drug which is most commonly known as a "birth control pill" for medical purposes other than contraception. Does a boss have the right to see the patient's private medical file in order to determine whether the prescription is for contraception or other purposes? If the drug is prescribed for other reasons, does the boss have the right to interfere because inability to conceive is a "side effect" of the prescription - and even as a side effect it's against the boss' religion? What if an employee were on a medication which was only prescribed to patients being treated for diabetes, but it had the side effect of interfering with conception - can the boss single out that drug to be treated as one against the boss' religion?
Suppose a woman has a medical condition which would make pregnancy highly dangerous to her health. Should employer-provided health insurance which normally excludes contraceptives cover it in this case - even if the boss' religion opposes contraception even in this situation?
Where does an anti-contraceptives boss' "rights" end? Can he ask job applicants to sign a statement they won't use contraceptives, then refuse to hire one on the basis of not signing? If applicants do sign, are they then legally bound to not use contraceptives, or is that a legally void contract? Is an anti-contraceptives boss able to not pay that part of his taxes which would go to contraceptives covered by health insurance for government employees, members of the military and anyone covered by any government program? When the Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for insurance premiums of other Americans, can anti-contraceptive bosses reduce their taxes based on the government spending on those subsidies? If so, can religious pacifists be exempt from that part of taxes which goes to the military? If not, why must they pay taxes for contraceptives, but not cover it in employee insurance? (If the legal answer is: "employees" don't have the same rights as "citizens" - that's another issue we need to take on.)
- - - -
The government offered to let anti-contraceptive bosses have an intermediary handle health insurance claims so the boss would not have to see claims for contraceptives. I didn't like the idea that these bosses were getting special treatment because they didn't like employees practicing their own beliefs rather than having the boss' beliefs imposed on them. However, perhaps, it might be better if all employers were prevented from seeing health insurance claims the boss might dislike. Requiring that no boss be able to see these claims would mean anti-contraceptive bosses would not have the option of reviewing claims and firing workers who use contraceptives. Clearly, there are bosses who want to impose their religion on others, so it's not so hard to believe that some may fire workers they know don't accept those imposed beliefs.