Free Broccoli

Free Broccoli: Okay, I know I don't normally do this, but I need to make an angry venting post.

andthentheresanne:

wildandflowering:

freebroccoli:

Regarding this whole issue of the contraceptive mandate:

If you think that religious groups are trying to impose their beliefs on you by opposing the mandate,

You. Are. Flipping. Stupid.

There is a difference between not wanting something mandated and wanting it outlawed. Those who oppose the…

I know I don’t talk about politics ever (I hate politics and I hate debating them), but I really do agree with this.  What we have to remember with this controversy is that it’s not actually about religion at all, the Catholic Church just happens to be speaking up about it.  This is about being forced to do something, regardless of whether or not a group agrees with the sentiment.  It would be just as wrong if a mandate were issued saying organizations had to, say, make naptime mandatory during work hours.

Naps are pretty sweet, don’t get me wrong.  And birth control can actually be extremely helpful (I had to use it once for a health reason and gasp!  I’m Catholic!).

But again, being forced to do something is the issue here.  Let’s not lose sight of that truth.  And, again, I hate debating politics and this example was probably really bizarre to people who are used to debating, but I just wanted to get this off my chest.  

I’ll probably lose followers and if you want to stop following me, that is totally fine.  I’ll have no hard feelings if you do.  

Aaaaand this blog will now return to its previous state of silliness and reblogged pictures of fictional and two-dimensional people.  YEAHHHHHHH

Actually most religious institutions already provide coverage for, along with many other things, birth control. Religious institutions like many universities and hospitals in this country. (This mandate would not have effected houses of worship.)

The difference between this debate and, say, whether an employer (religious or not) should be mandated to provide health insurance to its employees is very slight, really. The only reason this is somehow ‘controversial’ is because it involved women.

Companies are forced to pay their workers. They are forced to compensate them fairly for the time they have spent working. If someone works “overtime”, companies are forced to pay them more. People are forced to follow laws. People are forced to pay their taxes, even for things they might not like (I don’t like that my taxes pay for things like the death penalty). 

So how is saying to all employers, regardless of their religious affiliation, that if they provide health care to their employees it must be comprehensive and non-discriminatory of an employee’s sex any different?

Because I’m not seeing it.

Employers are forced to pay their employees because that’s the employment contract; failure to compensate me according to our hypothetical agreement is tantamount to stealing from me.

But justifiable laws only enforce contracts; they don’t mandate what is in the contract. If I voluntarily enter into a contract with someone who doesn’t wish to include contraceptive coverage as a part of my compensation, no one has the right to require that I do so. Likewise, if I don’t wish to cover it in the insurance I offer, no one has the right to force me to, as long as I honor the contract I entered into.