I can appreciate the civil discourse with Mr. Sebeck on government mandated contraceptive coverage for employers. I too lament the 500 word limit, especially when the local liberal Mr. Clark gets free rein weekly to use many more words to slam conservative ideals he does not agree with. I do understand the space limitations of this forum, and am thankful for it.
As Mr. Sebeck does not take issue at this time with my 10th Amendment and commerce clause concerns, even while he may not agree, I will not use valuable words to discuss those items.
Mr. Sebeck indicates employer rights do not supersede employee rights, and that one person's rights do not supersede anothers, but leaves the third leg of the argument out, that employee rights do not supersede that of their employers. In fact, in a free society, all have the same and equal rights. He then goes on to state many truths that we can find common ground on about how basically no one can force their ideals on any other person, business, or institution. I commend him on his ideals in recognizing the freedoms of the people and the limitations on government control.
As he closes however, to me, his argument falls off the wagon with one sentence. "What my employer certainly doesn't have the right to do is use their religious beliefs as justification for hindering my access to the same level of health care provided to every other citizen." Here he speaks of employers hindering access, which is untrue. Access is not denied, the employers make no restrictions on any employees desire to use contraception. You may access it at any drugstore, Planned Parenthood, or male contraceptives at any truck stop gas station. He goes on to further damage his argument by stating that employers are trying to deny the same level of health care provided every other citizen. This is also untrue. Each employer may decide if they want to provide health care as a benefit to entice employees or not.
They then can decide whether to provide $100 deductible, $500 deductible, 10 percent copay, 20 percent copay, contraception, sex change coverage, dental coverage, vision coverage, or any other multitude of options that they desire to offer.
The options are endless, and are decided upon by each employer based on many variables including how competitive they wish to be for employees and what they can afford.
You have no constitutional right to force an employer to provide birth control to anyone in any form at any time. Therein lies the basis for our disagreement.
While I respect Mr. Sebecks opinion, I can only conclude he has a different interpretation of the Constitution and government control over the populace than I (and Mr. Benishek) do. So should I then accuse him of not reading the constitution? I think not, but that assertion was made when Mr. Sebeck disagreed with Mr. Benishek's position on this issue.
That was what prompted my initial reply.