The Campus

Donate to The Campus
Our Goal

Comments (1)

All The Campus Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • C

    Craig HayesFeb 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    This piece completely misses the idea of personal liberty/freedom versus collective liberty/freedom. Yes, religious organizations have their constitutional rights, but at the same token, individual citizens have their own inherent freedoms as well. In the war of factions versus personal liberty, I’d like to think personal liberty trumps all. This type of thinking creates a slippery slope– where do we stop with these types of religious objections? What if, as an employer, I have a fundamental belief against any form of modern medicine (as do some sects of Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Should I be allowed to deny my employees benefits because of my beliefs? What constitutes a justified moral objection? In a like manner, Quakers vehemently oppose war of any kind, but yet, they are compelled to pay taxes that fund the very thing they are against.

    However, I think the more broader idea that we should be taking from this is that this law changes very little of common practice. This type of preventive healthcare saves millions of dollars each year, and benefits all of society. Most insurance companies will inevitably pick up the bill because they recognize this fact. Finally, propaganda messages from the author such as “In the administration’s most recent push for abortion” sensationalizes the issue at hand. It gives way to the absurd notion that Mr. Obama is pushing for abortions on every corner, in every pew, and in every confessional.

Activate Search
OPINION: HHS mandate abuses federal power