Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Rights vs. wants

John Nolte over at Big Journalism beats me to something that's been niggling at my brain for the last little while--free birth control.  In the fight for the First Amendment, which is the most important part of the Obamacare birth control mandate, something has not been brought into the forefront. 

The fact that not only is the Obamacare mandate making private entites pay for insurance that includes birth control, sterilization, etc., they are having to pay full freight--no co-pays for these prescriptions or procedures. 

Every other prescription, procedure, or test has a co-pay in today's insurance world.  No other prescriptions are being mandated as co-pay free, not even the ones deemed to prevent death.  Why is this particular set of medicines and procedures being set up differently??  Probably because Obama's feminist cadre has proven that they can control the narrative on this issue and even bring down one of their own using nothing but social media and misinformation.

I dunno and maybe I'm missing the point or the feminists are going to come take my woman-membership card and change the secret handshake, but I have ALWAYS taken responsibility for my own pills and prescriptions.  If my insurance didn't cover them (or if I didn't have insurance) then I went on Ramen noodles to save the money for that monthly purchase (or went without).  If my physician was associated with a Catholic hospital and couldn't prescribe my pills, I went to a different doctor.

There is no RIGHT to birth control.   There is no RIGHT to having birth control being paid for by other people.  I prefer the route of personal responsibility.  I don't think that women's reproduction is more important than heart medication or asthma medication or insulin for diabetics.  If one has to co-pay, then they all should have to.  If your company's insurance doesn't pay for items, there are still private alternatives or just suck it up and pay full freight.

5 comments:

Borepatch said...

Bingo!

You can't find a starker example of the "Positive Rights" mindset vs. the "Negative Rights" mindset.

This is core, not context.

Midwest Chick said...

BP--I think too it comes down to equal protection under the law and defining a right vs a want. I also don't think that a law, rule, or regulation should ever be passed that has to either have an exemption for anyone or creates or gives a specific class a clear advantage in the marketplace. Therein lies mediocrity.

Chas Clifton said...

I just wonder how many of those defending the RC church here would have been on the side of government that walked all over Alfred Smith in the name of the War on Drugs -- this after the Native American Church spent most of the 20th century establishing its sacramental use of peyote.

"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.." said Justice Scalia.

So if we didn't mean to take away your religious freedom, it's OK.

The Obama Administration will probably make the same argument.

Midwest Chick said...

I think the Supremes were wrong in the Alfred Smith case, but not sure this is a direct correlation. In this case the RCs are being forced/mandated into paying for something that against their stated beliefs. But you're right in that the Administration will probably use this as precedent even if the circumstances are completely different.

AJ said...

Does anyone else remember that, before Viagra (instantly covered by insurance), NONE of the insurance companies covered birth control pills?