Sandra Fluke’s battle seems to be lost. Her quest to force schools such as Georgetown University to provide employees and students with coverage for contraception-preventative medical costs has recently flopped.
In the face of the Obama administration’s recent exemption of religiously-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and schools from a new requirement for employers to provide coverage for contraception for all employees, her cause is a lost cause.
However, between the crude remarks of Rush Limbaugh and Virginia’s newfound battle against abortion, it seems as if women have become the focal point of legislative agendas.
This creates the question: should employers be legally obligated to provide coverage for contraception-preventative medicine?
In light of increasingly diverse workplaces and great strides in anti-discriminatory litigation, we believe that women should not be left out.
Many have made this an issue of religious liberty versus women’s reproductive health. According to a recent CBS poll, America is largely divided over this issue, with 40 percent of Americans arguing that such legislation is an infringement on religious liberty, while 76 percent of those who disagree report that a lack of such legislation is an infringement on women’s reproductive rights.
However, we believe that this is not a case of “one or the other,” but an issue that must be examined in all lights.
First and foremost, it is an issue of economics. U.S. News and World Report has published that contraception can cost women an average of $500 to $2,000 yearly. In a nation in which those most prone to unwanted pregnancies are also those who face poor job predictions, such in an undue financial burden.
Moreover, denying women access to such preventative measures places them in a disadvantage against men who pay much lower costs for contraception-preventative measures on a yearly basis.
On a larger scale, it is also imperative to examine the role in which many religiously-affiliated organizations have been permitted to play in the daily lives of Americans. Universities and hospitals, which receive millions of dollars in federal grants every year must abide by the same rules to which the federal government adheres. Just as religiously-affiliated programs cannot discriminate based on a client’s religious background (be such a person a student, patient or other recipient of said institution’s services), they must also be prevented from denying women access to basic contraception-preventative measures.’
Private religious institutions are not a component of this group, serving exclusive populations.
It is not just for larger organizations serving diverse populations to enjoy the benefit of federal dollars while employing religious belief to serve as a justification for preventing access to contraception-preventative measures.
In no manner is such legislation an infringement on religious liberty. It is not fair for an organization to continue receiving federal funding, but complain that new federal legislation is impeding on its religious liberty. Such organizations should not be given the indirect tax dollars of the American people until they are willing to reflect American legislation or executive orders.
An employer’s personal beliefs should not interfere with the beliefs of his or her employees. It is possible for insurance companies and large organizations to provide health-care coverage without violating one’s religious liberty.
When government requires an organization to follow a certain rule, it is not necessarily an infringement on a personal liberty. The federal government is not asking for employers to believe in the effectiveness of ethical implications of contraceptive-preventative measures, but simply asking employers to provide them for employees as a measure of health.
Ultimately, it boils down to what is best for employees. In this case, providing contraception-preventative coverage falls under this category.
