Sunday, March 18, 2012

Should liberals have to pay to bring conservatives into the world?

As crazy as that sounds that is the other side of a ruling by a Kansas Federal judge in refusing to block a new Kansas law that requires health insurance companies to exclude abortion coverage in their general healthcare policies. The new law forces a woman to buy a rider that would cover medical expenses incurred in electing to have an abortion because it can no longer be covered as part of a general health insurance policy.

 The rationale Judge Wesley Brown used in failing to block the law was this:

 "The law appears to rationally further a state interest in allowing the State's citizens to avoid paying insurance premiums for services to which they have a moral objection,".

 Good enough. So now lets expand that to do the same for everyone so that the majority of those in blue states can pass a law where they don't have to pay insurance premiums that cover the cost of obstetric and post natal care policies for conservatives and Republicans since most Democrats, liberals and progressives have an understandable deep moral objection to Republican conservatives and their beliefs. Based on that, and Judge Brown's legal logic, they shouldn't have to pay to have conservatives bring children into the world who will no doubt grow up to be Republicans. Instead, conservatives and registered Republicans can buy riders to their insurance policies to cover their obstetric and post natal  care.

Using Judge Wesely Brown's logic, and the logic and values of Kansas conservatives who make up a majority in their legislature,  what's good for one has to be good for all since based on the Constitution no one group or majority gets to make only their moral objections law, which is why there is an establishment clause in the first amendment. Given Judge Brown's ruling, no Democrat or liberal should have to pay to subsidize health care premiums for Republicans to bring new Republicans into the world whose ideas, value and ideology for which  they have deep moral objections.
There is no doubt that most liberals and progressives have a deep and abiding moral objection to so called "conservative" values ( as did the Founders of this country and the framers of the constitution by the way). In fact a good case can be made that millions of liberals have a deep moral objection to even keeping conservatives healthy. So there is no reason for them to have to pay health insurance premiums that contribute to the health of conservatives.

According to Judge Brown's logic no one should have to pay insurance premiums to cover the cost of any kind of medical care for which they have a moral objection, so Democratically controlled states could pass laws forcing Republicans or conservatives to buy riders to cover the cost of their pregnancies and post natal care makes sense.
 Or is the judge saying that only the moral objections that he agrees with should be supported by the law? Which is the same rationale that kept African Americans, women, gays and lesbians and other minorities out of mainstream society and even put their lives at risk. Wasn't that also at the heart of Nazi philosophy? Of course the good people of Kansas and Judge Brown no doubt think that their moral objections are superior to everyone else's and are for the good of mankind. So did the Nazis and fascists who took those ideas to the extreme.
How far could Judge Brown's logic extend when it comes to laws based on a community's moral objections? Does anyone doubt that there are communities that have a moral objection to Muslims?  Wasn't the persecution of Jews, blacks, women, gays and lesbians and other religious minorities based on moral objections? Taking the politics out of it, if a state can pass laws based on their "moral objections" against people who don't want children which also results in a financial burden on those people, there should also be laws that put the same burdens on people who do want children, and force them to buy riders to their health insurance policies to cover the costs.

The ACLU should get this ruling by judge Brown struck down on constitutional grounds based on the "moral objection" rationale since it clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th.  And if it should be ruled constitutional then the same principle should be used against the people who formed it.
 "Moral objection" as a rationale can be a clear danger to democracy since many, including those on the extreme right have used moral objections as a rationale before to justify most of their agenda which many find immoral, amoral and hypocritical, not to mention that their agenda whenever turned into law became a disaster. Laws based on "moral objections" were used it to keep African Americans enslaved, to deprive them of equal rights 100 years after emancipation, to keep people of different races from marrying, to keep women, gays and others from having equal rights and opportunities, and was at the heart of the actions of the KKK whose symbol of a burning cross signified their belief in the rightness of their cause.It also led to women who were believed to be witches because of their sexual indulgences being burned at the stake by the church in the middle ages.

The "moral objection" idea has been used by dictators from Hitler to Ahmadinejad to not only deprive people of their rights but to persecute them. It's used in Iran and other Arab countries to stone women to death who dont adhere to their ultra right wing conservative moral beliefs, which is not all that far removed in attitude from  Republican conservatives trying to  pass laws banning contraception and forced vaginal ultrasounds along with state sanctioned psychological torture aimed at women wanting to get a legal abortion. "Moral objections" are also the grounds under which gays are executed in Iran.
The Kansas law and the rationale behind it seems to be patently unconstitutionall. It should be struck down. But if it isn't then let's do it the right thing and satisfy everyone's moral objections so Democrats and liberals and progressives and people who believe in the constitution don't have to pay and subsidize insurance premiiums for people for whom they have a deep moral objection bringing children into the world. Let's have everyone's moral objections respected. And lets see what Judge Brown and the conservatives in Kansas and everywhere else think about that.


Sophie said...

This is great! I do morally object to irresponsible breeding!

public liability insurance quote said...

Very exclusive photo and article thanks for sharing.