One More Reason to Nix the Restrictive HHS Exemption

One More Reason to Nix the Restrictive HHS Exemption  by MSW.  MGB: This gets to the key point of the discussion.  It was not some HHS appointee that said that contraception was an essential preventative service, it was the Institute of Medicine.  It was not a political decision to assuage feminists.  Once this is made clear, the main argument against the new rules falls apart.  The other argument is over the ensoulment of blastocysts, which is impossible because they are guided by only the maternal DNA.  If the higher reality is reflected in the lower, this means ensoulment before gastrulation is impossible and the only moral objection is over the sexual morlity of Church employees.  Such objections should never be honored in policy and probably cannot be in an environment when tax and direct subsidies are at play in providing insurance coverage.  The publicness of the funding brings the right of privacy into the mix.  By privacy, we mean not simply the right to confidentiality, but for individuals to make their own decisions without the state having a say (or their employers if using tax subsidies to fund health care).  Maybe the easiest way is to overcome the bishop's objections to the four part test is to drop all exemptions for the Church, which is the current status quo.  It is rather ungratious of the Church to not mention this.