Religious liberty means never having to say the law applies to you

A Missouri Republican legislator objects to having to pay for birth control coverage for his three daughters — two of whom are adults — and is suing for a personal belief exemption from the ACA, along the lines of Hobby Lobby.

Of course, the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision was that the government had not found the "least restrictive" way of enforcing the birth control coverage mandate. In the case of Paul Joseph Wieland, he is quite explicit that he and his wife simply do not want their daughters using birth control, and so he should not have to include it in their coverage; to do otherwise would be the equivalent of “an edict that said that parents must provide a stocked, unlocked liquor cabinet in their house whenever they’re away for their minor and adult daughters to use.”

Mr Wieland doesn't think much of birth control.

Whether that means that he — and presumably everyone else in the country — should get a personal religious exemption from paying for any insurance coverage he morally objects to (in theory extending to others, one would think, since he's still indirectly paying into the risk pool for their coverage), is a different question altogether.

Inspired by Hobby Lobby, a Father Tries to Deny His Daughters Birth Control Coverage
Usually, lawsuits that try to use “religious freedom” to prevent women from using their health plans for birth control are launched by employers, such as Notre Dame and Hobby Lobby. (This overlooks that the plans, like paychecks, technically belong to the people who earn them through working—but onward.) One of…

View on Google+