What is immoral in a society is whatever the society considers to be immoral.
If society consider (for example) slavery to be moral, that doesn't make it so.
That a precedent has been established suggests that there is, at a minimum, a case to be made that it might be moral
If your talking about a case that its moral to use contraception, then I agree. If your arguing that its ok to force people to pay for something that isn't vital, or a major natural interest than I disagree (if it does fall in those categories it becomes more complex), esp. if the imposition of the requirement goes beyond the powers constitutionally granted to the federal government.
That's even more true when there is so little justification for the action.
There is essentially no need for, and almost no benefit from, the requirement in question. The specific requirement deals only with people who have jobs with insurance, they would be able to afford contraception if they need it, and in fact will effectively be paying for it even if its covered, since insurance coverage is part of their compensation, and more extensive coverage (in the long run and as an overall average, not necessarily for every single person or in the very short run) leads to less compensation through wages/salaries, or non-health benefits.
|
