The Politics of Sex and Bacon

Ever since Kathleen Sebelius chose to make Obamacare cover contraception (see "A Woman's Right to Choose"), the nation has been spinning with debate over the issue of whether or not the U.S. government should force religious institutions to pay for contraceptive services that a small minority of the public disagree with.

The Obama administration quickly backtracked from its original position (that religious institutions should pay to cover contraception) to a more nuanced position (that insurance agencies must provide workers in religious institutions contraception coverage for free). Does pushing the bill to another source end the debate?

In "The Parable of the Kosher Deli," Bishop William Lori clarifies why the issue is still alive by setting up an imaginary situation in which the government forces a Kosher Deli to sell ham sandwiches. After public outcry the government changes its position and makes the Deli pay for a third party to sell ham sandwiches on it's premises. There is no moral distancing between the first and second situation.  The issue here is not whether or not ham sandwiches or birth control are good or ill, the issue is weather or not people should be forced to pay for something that they have moral objections to.

Most supporters of what many call "choice" (Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., et al) support Obamacare because it furthers their political ends. I would argue that by forcing everyone to pay for contraception coverage you are not expanding choice in America, you are narrowing choice.

This is not a debate over contraception (I use it and certainly don't want it banned), it is a debate over the freedom of an organization to choose if it will financially support something it disagrees with.