This article caught my attention because it may be the first seriously conservative article I have seen in the New York Times. In fact, most of the websites I use to find articles are pretty liberal, so this was interesting to read.
I'm sure everyone has heard something about the recently hot issue of contraception- should it be mandatory for companies to include contraception as part of their insurance policies. Personally, it seemed like a fine idea to me. Nobody's forcing contraception onto actual individuals, they're just making it available to people who want it. And the last thing we need is girls who can't afford contraception to be accidentally having babies. But this article presented a side of the argument that I had not considered- what about companies that have entirely religious purposes?
The author of the article, who works for a Catholic media organization, believes that complying with the bill would be "compromising their beliefs." He presents a strong argument. He explains how difficult it would be if the company tried to refuse to comply, and how compliance would be strongly immoral in the eyes of the company. He used logos, with reasonable arguments about the practical effects. He also used ethos, being the president of the organization. Pathos was used when he spoke about the morality of the bill and the idea of compromising one's beliefs.
I was torn on how to feel about the article. I absolutely disagree with his views, and I don't consider contraception to be morally wrong in any way. I hate the idea of people who work for the company in certain areas, like technical staff and such, who don't necessarily agree with the company's views, being denied this right. However, if I were the owner of a company, and I was forced to give my employees a license to do something I considered horribly immoral, I would be disgusted. For this reason, I have some sympathy for this guy. Still, I agree with the bill and I don't think I would want this company to be an exception.
Article
Hi, Kelly,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you can see the real problem here for Catholic employers, even if you do not agree. So many people do not realize what is being mandated here and why these religious organizations, and even individuals, feel they cannot comply. True, it is a relatively small group of people who would think that the use of contraception is immoral, but just because it is a small group, they should not be mandated to comply. This line from your article really says it all: "However, if I were the owner of a company, and I was forced to give my employees a license to do something I considered horribly immoral, I would be disgusted. "
Beware, you may not be able to think of anything at the moment that you might be forced to do, but that is the danger that this precedent sets, not just for the Catholic Church, not just for religious people, not just for those opposed to contraception, but the danger is for everyone.
Here is a way to look at this issue: You don’t have to smoke. You don’t have to like it if your employees smoke. But the federal government has just told you that if your employees want to smoke, you will provide cigarettes, on your dime, or face a fine. This is akin to what the government is asking Catholic employers to do through the HHS mandate. It is a violation of our First Amendment right and must be overturned. If Americans allow the federal government to take away this right from Catholics, precedence will be set for her to take away any other right she feels so inclined to do.
Another good analogy here, "Parable of the Kosher Deli and the Pork Mandate" http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-030.cfm
Thanks for taking on this topic and showing an understanding of what the issue is. So many people are missing the point.
woooohooooo!!! we have an outsider comment!
ReplyDelete