It is very strongly infringing on their freedom. Even more so when you do so directly, make them pay for it, but it still is even when you make the government pay for it, since the government is forcing tax payers to pay for it. Some infringement on freedom is justifiable, probably even necessary, but its still only a wrong in the name of a greater good, not a good itself.
What's the greater good, or good at all, here? There is none, or at least almost none.
If you force coverage, that coverage is part of the employees compensation
then the Federal government withholds all money going to these faith based organizations!
The law isn't "you can only get federal money if you agree to these conditions". If it was I'd still find it unreasonable*, but not an abuse, not an infringement on freedom, at least no a serious one. If they accept not a penny from the government (and some of these organizations don't, even if a number of them do, sometimes a lot of money) you are still required to pay for contraception coverage.
If you let others do what they want, then you can hope for a peaceful live and let live situation much of the time. If you try to force them not just to let you do what you want (which is usually quite reasonable) but to participate in it in some way (do it themselves, pay for it, make encouraging statements about it, whatever), then you turn the government in to a weapon for everyone to use to try to subjugate everyone else.
they provide for something that 99% of the women use sometime in their life.
If 99 percent use it (I doubt its quite that high, but it is very high, and I'll go with you figure for now), than obviously there isn't an availability problem. The problem you are trying to resolve isn't a problem, the justification for the imposition goes away.
* - Unreasonable because when government spends as much as ours does, imposing a bunch of requirements like this still imposes a certain level of political control, rather than individual free decision making. Just imagine in turned around the other way and you might see what I mean. Suppose that any organization that received federal money was required to NOT pay for contraception coverage, or that organizations like the Brady Campaign or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were required to pay for guns and ammo for their employees (they presumably wouldn't have to pay that much, but the principle would be the same, if they do actually receive federal money, if they don't I could find some other organization that does and could be forced to support what its against). |
