Regarding (syndicated columnist) Kathryn Lopez (Lopez: Religious stand tall, hold fast, Jan. 1, amarillo.com) — suppose you have been hired for a job and are signing up for health insurance coverage. Suppose one of those documents reads as follows: “Our company offers health care insurance coverage. Please note the exceptions and exclusions listed.
“Any medical treatment, procedure, service, medicine, device, process, counseling, or care of any nature whatsoever shall be ineligible for coverage if it relates to treatment for the following: Sexually transmitted diseases contracted during sexual activity outside of marriage. This includes nonmarital sexual activity by a single person or extramarital sexual activity by a married person. This exclusion can be waived for the ‘innocent’ marital partner infected by an adulterous mate; provided, however, that such innocent partner swears and affirms, in writing, that he or she has not engaged in adulterous activity.
“Libido-enhancing medications or treatments for single adults/married adults engaged in extramarital relationships.
“Illness, disease, injury or accident resulting from the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs. This includes accident/injury resulting from driving under the influence of alcohol/illegal drugs. However, treatment and prescriptions may be covered only for first-round treatment of newly diagnosed alcohol or drug abuse. If, thereafter, a patient/employee or covered dependent persists in consuming alcohol or illegal drugs, no further treatment will be covered.
“Accident or injury occurring while the insured is engaged in paid employment on the Sabbath (or Sunday, as applicable). As previously stated, all venues of the company are closed on the Sabbath (or Sunday) in order for employees to spend a day of rest with their families. Accident or injury occurring during the willful violation of this principle is excluded.
“Illness, disease, injury, accident or mental/emotional disturbance resulting from activities or behaviors violating one or more of the Ten Commandments as enumerated in the book of Exodus 20:1-17.”
Would you passively acquiesce to such intrusive, judgmental, patronizing, none-of-their-business intrusions? If religious employers challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prevail, their employees will certainly be acquiescing to that type of intrusive control.
Outrageous though the above imaginary exclusions might seem, they parallel the ideology at the heart of the current uproar. Lopez alleges the provision requiring non-exempt employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception benefits “threatens the religious liberty of not only Catholics but also evangelicals and others with objections of conscience to any of these policies.”
If that is the case, why are such conscientious objectors not also demanding the right to implement the coverage exclusions outlined above? The principle is the same: allowing employers, based on their personal religious and ethical beliefs, to cherry-pick exceptions. Considering they claim the Bible as their moral authority, it is reasonable to assume the majority of these “threatened” employers are religiously and morally opposed to adultery, fornication, substance abuse and other sins. Why are they singling out access to contraceptives for their outrage and activism?
Dona Dirickson Clements