Why should Jewish companies be forced to cover illnesses caused by consumption of pork?
At the heart of the so-called Hobby Lobby case before the U.S. Supreme Court is the argument that companies owned by Christian opponents of abortion should not be forced to provide insurance covering certain forms of contraception. It’s a matter of religious freedom, they say.
But there are two fundamental problems with this argument:
1. The claim that certain forms of contraception are abortifacients is not supported by most medical experts.
2. More to the point, why should Christian opponents of abortion be granted an exemption from law on the basis of their religious beliefs? After all, abortion is legal, despite all the arguments that it shouldn’t be.
David Atkins argues HERE that the logic advanced by religionists in the Hobby Lobby case raises these issues:
No Muslim or Jewish employer gets to demand that their employees not get coverage for, say, illnesses resulting from eating pork. No Hindu employer gets to restrict health coverage for people who eat beef or were born to the wrong caste. If I found a religion stating that guns are the Devil’s tools, I still don’t get to restrict medical coverage for my employees based on their gun ownership–even if they shoot themselves.