Critique of "How Republicans Are Trying to Force You to Pay for Others' Religious Beliefs"

On Tuesday, March 8, 2012, left-leaning blog The Smirking Chimp published a commentary by Joshua Holland entitled, "How Republicans Are Trying to Force You to Pay for Others' Religious Beliefs". In this commentary, Holland, a 5-year veteran contributor to the blog, argues that Republicans are trying to abuse government power to force Americans to pay for birth control through insurance premiums. The issue centers around a recent amendment, the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, that, if passed, would allow employers to refuse coverage of medical services they found "morally objectionable". Holland admits that "religious liberty is bedrock principle, and people whose faith leads them to oppose the use of birth control have that right." However, he adds, the issue rests not on the fact that religious liberty is being stamped out, but the complete opposite, in a source of reverse discrimination policy. No one is forced to use contraception contrary to their beliefs, so why should those who use it be forced to pay extra for it because of someone else's beliefs?

Holland notes that "religious liberty" did not even enter the equation until it became a hot-button issue among Republicans. The core issue, he explains, is health insurance: the fact that it costs insurers MORE to cover a contraceptive-free population than to foot the bill on birth control. In order to avoid losing money, insurance companies have to raise premiums, not just for those who oppose contraceptives, but for those who support them and are already adequately covered by the current scenario. "This is fundamentally unfair," Holland argues. "The vast majority of Americans don't have a moral objection to using birth-control... and as long as the devout's right to practice their religion as they choose... is not in danger, then we shouldn't have to pay for their superstitions through higher premiums."

He points out that religious conservatives often try to turn the argument inside-out by claiming they are the ones who would be paying more as is to cover others' birth control. But the truth is that it's actually more expensive to insure a contraceptive-free population BECAUSE of the cost of the resulting unwanted pregnancies. This is higher than the cost of planned pregnancies, because they invite fewer health complications, and therefore fewer medical bills. "For the cost of the average childbirth in the United States," Holland writes, "you could cover a woman's birth control pills for approximately 293 years."

"That turns reality on its head," he argues. "What Republicans want to do is allow employers to opt out of preventive care that saves money, and the rest of us will bear those costs when insurers pass them on in the form of higher premiums." He closes by saying that no one's beliefs are being threatened by allowing insurers to offer birth control as a service to those who use it. "If your religion compels you to either abstain from sex or have unprotected sex, you're more than welcome to do so," he offers. "But when it comes to using the power of 'big government' to coerce the rest of us into paying higher insurance premiums for those beliefs, well, that's what the separation of church and state is all about. We're just demanding the freedom not to have to pay for your antiquated religious views."

I thought that this commentary seemed to be a little bit biased against those who hold religious conservative beliefs. Holland may be confusing the deseparation of church and state with one group of concerned individuals who doesn't want to have to pay for contraceptives they neither support nor use under the current insurance plan. Holland himself says that "religious liberty" was not even a part of the issue until recently. Honestly, it may not be part of the issue now - perhaps it's just the skewed way that people view the beliefs of religious conservatives from the other side of the fence. Even the title shows that his commentary is directed at an audience of non-religious left-wingers - he is trying to convince them that "Republicans are trying to force YOU to pay for OTHERS' religious beliefs." This is more or less a one-sided argument on his part. Perhaps he needs to look deeper into the ideology of the religious conservatives he is criticizing.

However, Holland does offer one very valid point - that the amendment in question would indeed raise insurance costs, and not just for those who got what they wanted out of the amendment. So while I do not fully agree with his argument that this is a ploy by religious conservatives to force their beliefs on others, I do side with him that the bill should not be passed because in the end, it's affecting the majority of people financially, and not in a good way.