Everything you wrote I either agree with or already knew, so we’re not actually in much of a disagreement. Here’s where the quibble remains:
- The families felt that would constitute an abortion, which is not true. This statement is false. It is THOUGHT to be not true BY MOST, but studies have been unable to confirm or deny the belief that the listed contraceptive act by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. One assumes that if the science were conclusive, HL would not have objected to the method. But from the viewpoint of the owners, any risk that the method might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is in violation of their beliefs; and thus they quite logically will err on the side of caution.
- I will also add another point which is obvious but for some reason commonly missed: that the HL owners have science on their side on this one. The moment you try to prove a scientific question by resorting to what “the majority of scientists believe” you are no longer engaging in “science” but polling. Science doesn’t care what a majority believes. It cares what can be conclusively proven as fact. If 1% disagree and can point to an evidence based reason for that disagreement, then the point is not proven.
- No, they do not require, overtly, that employees embrace or even practice their faith. However, by falsely believing…
The above arguments negate your opinion on this, sorry, as does the english language. You can view it as imposing if you like, but as long as science cannot categorically state that those methods will never cause implantation failure of a fertilized egg, then the families have a constitutional right to their beliefs.
- The other problem you have here is with the dictionary. Your argument is that HL is imposing their beliefs on their employees by *not* paying for these devices. That’s passive. Well, IMPOSE is emphatically defined as an action verb; you cannot therefore IMPOSE something on somebody else passively. Therefore, the *best* you can claim is that the decision permits the Green family to manage this part of their business according to their beliefs, and that belief has repercussions for those employees (fortunately, very few, as we know) who require one of these contraceptive methodologies.
In conclusion, a couple of things to think about. This is a classic “clash of rights” which is not uncommon in our history. I have the right to be secure in my home, but what if I am controversial, and there’s a thousand reporters in the street in front of my home exerting the right of press freedom or assembly?
When rights clash, it ends up in court, and somebody always loses. That’s regrettably but not unexpected. However, the court must keep an eye on the enumerated right. America is not America if people have restrictions on their freedom of religion; America, however, is still America if a few people who need IUD’s work for one of the tiny number of employers who are going to avail themselves of this law, and can’t get one. You have an enumerated right to practice your religion; you have no enumerated right to a particular medical procedure, particularly when the solution is as simply as changing employers, now that pre-existing conditions are no longer an impediment.
Hope that helps.