Quote:
|
can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, [...] the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control,
|
if companies that object to offering cover on the insurance they provide also refuse to sign a piece of paper confirming that they object to providing cover for birth control, thereby ensuring that those women cannot access such provision through a government scheme, then they are absolutely imposing their religion on their employees.
For those who say they could choose to work elsewhere - yes, they could. But sometimes that choice isn't really a genuine choice. If the choice is between continuing to work for the company and being able to feed and clothe your children, or leave that job and not be able to feed and clothe your children, then that is not a truly 'free' choice.
It all depends on the employment availability for your skill set and your region - if you are working in a low paid job, in an area with high unemployment and little to no welfare, then deciding to leave your job is a very, very big deal, particularly if you have dependents.
As far as paying for this stuff out of their own wages - again, what are those wages? The vast majority of people currently accessing foodbanks and living in food poverty are in work. Many are already having to choose between fuel or food, clothes for their kids or rent.Those same people are unlikely to have the kinds of savings and back up cash that would allow them to relocate themselves and their families.
The people who object on some moral ground to providing contraceptives are no doubt the same people who will happily condemn as profligate women who have more children than they can afford to look after.