Our healthcare system is in transition. At present we have the ACA which mandates health insurance for everyone, which is good but also new. Meanwhile, we’ve kept the old vehicle for getting most people their insurance, the employer-provided, “for profit” system. Jesus once said that putting new wine into old wineskins is a really dumb idea. We seem determined to prove him right.
When health insurance is mandated and then provided by employers, what happens when the needs and religious beliefs of employee and employer don’t mesh? As a woman I’m sympathetic to the women who want/need birth control coverage in their health insurance. As a person of faith, I’m sympathetic to those employers who don’t want to be complicit in medical practices which violate their religious beliefs. A just system should not create such conflicts, so our larger concern should be here.
But meanwhile, how should the courts decide this case? As a person of faith, I don’t believe that my religious convictions regarding healthcare should dictate what others can or cannot do about their own healthcare. One consideration: allowing religious convictions to determine health insurance coverage gets tricky. If Hobby Lobby owners can say they won’t pay for certain birth control methods, then what about employers who don’t believe in blood transfusions or consider smoking to be a sin and refuse to pay for lung cancer treatments, etc.? A 2nd consideration: being part of a pluralistic society means we always struggle to balance the public good with personal convictions. For example, my Christian convictions call me to oppose the death penalty, but I am required to pay taxes, some of which are used to prosecute death penalty cases. I have the legal right to protest the death penalty. I do not have the legal right to withhold taxes. So, the struggle of Hobby Lobby owners isn’t unique. It’s new because of the ACA.