One new rule offers an exemption to any employer or insurer that objects to covering contraceptive services \u201cbased on its sincerely held religious beliefs.\u201d Another regulation offers a new exemption to employers that have \u201cmoral convictions\u201d against covering contraceptives.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Because employment is fungible, so anyone who is stuck at an employer who feels their moral stance outweighs the moral stance of their employees can easily just walk out that door and find a job somewhere else, the sluts.<\/p>\n
Two rules were issued because just religious<\/i> objections weren’t enough.<\/p>\n The Trump administration has legal reasons for issuing two rules, one for religious objections and one for moral objections. Most lawsuits attacking the mandate assert that it violates a 1993 law protecting religious liberty. The administration acknowledges that the law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, \u201cdoes not provide protection for nonreligious, moral conscientious objections.\u201d<\/p>\n But, the administration says, \u201cCongress has a consistent history of supporting conscience protections for moral convictions alongside protections for religious beliefs.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So my headline misspeaks. It’s not just about theocrats, it’s about anyone<\/i> who has a moral objection. Of course, anyone can claim a “moral” objection. The line between “moral” and pretty much any other justification or bias or hang-up is a short one. Ultimately, this sets a precedent for saying, “If you don’t agree with something in a law, you can just kinda skip doing it.” That’s probably not the message they want<\/i> to be sending, but I guarantee it will raise further objections to all sorts of laws, which will get selective support depending on what it is and who else dislikes it.<\/p>\n In passing, the Trump Administration further hand-waves off any idea that contraception might be a medical treatment for certain conditions. But it notes it’s doing the nation a favor by making sex less risk-free.<\/p>\n The new rules also suggest that the contraceptive mandate could promote \u201crisky sexual behavior\u201d among teenagers and young adults.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For a serial philanderer, it seems odd that Trump is so gung-ho now about preventing “risky sexual behavior.” Of course, Trump doesn’t really care about these rules; this is Pence \/ Sessions territory here. Trump is interested only insofar as it solidifies his paradoxical evangelical base.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Justice Dept. made it clear that religious objections would apply to more than just nassssty birth control.<\/p>\n The twin actions, by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department, were meant to carry out a promise issued by President Trump five months ago, when he declared in the Rose Garden that \u201cwe will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore.\u201d\u00a0Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted those words in issuing guidance to federal agencies and prosecutors, instructing them to take the position in court that workers, employers and organizations may claim broad exemptions from nondiscrimination laws on the basis of religious objections.<\/p>\n Mr. Sessions\u2019s guidance issued on Friday directs federal agencies to review their regulations with an eye to expanding their protections for religious believers. Conservative religious individuals and organizations have objected for years to nondiscrimination laws that have affected whom they can hire and fire, whom they can serve and how they can operate. The new directive affords them far broader latitude.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It’s the “Get Out of Discrimination Laws Free (If You Claim That God Told You It’s Okay To Discriminate)” card. And just the sort of thing that Jeff Sessions (and MIke Pence) salivates over as how the government should work, and how people should be allowed to discriminate willy-nilly (but only the right kind of discrimination).<\/p>\n It’s a sad day, frankly. Conservative religionists (or moralists) have long wanted this kind of protection, without realizing the implications. If someone can fire a person because of religious objections to their behavior, well that may sound great if it’s because they’re dirty homosexuals, or people who have children out of wedlock, or even, maybe, heretics and sinners of a different (or not) faith. What happens when someone says, though, “I have a moral objection to Baptists, because I think they are bad people who discriminate against the innocent, so if I find out one of my employees is Baptist, they’re outta here.” Or perhaps, “I morally consider male circumcision to be child abuse, so I have the right to inquire about any employee with male children, and fire their asses if they’ve done such a thing.”<\/p>\n Those conservatives should remember that discrimination is only a “good” thing when you’re the group in the majority, the group in charge. The demographics do not favor those moral persuasions. Which means their presumptions of being in the majority aren’t necessarily sound ones for long.<\/p>\n Other articles noted or quoted: View on Google+<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n— https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2017\/10\/05\/us\/politics\/trump-birth-control.html<\/a>
\n— https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/2017\/10\/trump-administration-roll-back-birth-control-mandate.html<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\nTrump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate – The New York Times<\/a><\/span>
\nNew rules vastly expand religious exemptions from an Obama-era requirement for employers to include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/proxy\/MsbZFRluLaCJNECqYnIRj8ydvzVPk-Wb_sCIbQyNV4eTvJol0UKtHpVs65CNsynTg4-kKBSC4Vrom3kUbNPOkn-f175rAN3hNQqQnJaVPXMaW_bZfyqWvj-R6isqXWJoFAzBx0x2IL9umBlnckbjcUEthK8gXSVDKFnB5kBfmw=w506-h910\")