Is Birth Control Covered by the Constitution? What about my HMO?

Is Birth Control Covered by the Constitution? What about my HMO?
By Blaque Roebuck

  

 

   Recent talk of birth control coverage by employers, or lack thereof, has largely flown beneath the radar. For a woman my age, or in the age bracket from 18-25, this is a major issue. In Arizona, only a short few weeks ago on March 14th, a bill was drawn up and is currently being voted on, and if passed, allows employers to not only deny coverage of birth control to their employees if they so choose, but also, to reprimand or even fire these same employees. How is this even possible, or more specifically, constitutional? Didn't Obama just pass a the law saying that employers have to cover contraceptive, unless there are religious stipulations? In 3 simple steps, this mystery can be explained:

The previously mentioned "religious stipulations"
    Say you're a young woman, starting your career at a so-called "mom-and-pop" company. Everything seems great. Because they are independently owned and operated, the benefits are better and more inclusive. Let's take it a step further and say this company is owned by a WOMAN. Jackpot, right? Well if this female-owned, utopian company is owned by a practicing Catholic who does not believe in the use of contraception, except for MAYBE due to a medical issue, you might as well be a woman working for Wal-Mart. Because small business has alot more freedom, in many ways, than big business, they can set the bar for excellence or for what they accept nearly anywhere. Now, you may be asking the same question I was, "Isn't this unconstituional somehow?" The answer is: yes and no. Which answer you'll get is based entirely on whom you are speaking about. For example, it's unconstitional for the Pepsi corporation to refuse to hire you based on your color or creed, as it would be for a small business. However, it can be viewed as unconstituional on behalf on the small business TO hire you if you have different religious views or values. It's a circular argument, and no one really ends up winning as a result, but women, in this case, could definitely end up losing.

Obama's law left room for something like this to happen
   Though the initial bill passed by Obama was a victory not only for his administration, but also for women at large, there was one fatal flaw in his plan: HE IMPLIED THE RELIGIOUS WAIVER. Granted, this is America, and if someone is not comfortable doing something, then by all means they shouldn't have to do it. At the same time though, in our overly politically correct, fair and inclusive society, sometimes unfairness still finds it's way to shine through, even when things are well-meaning. Presumably, when Obama enstated this law, and gave way to religious issues with the issue at hand, he knew there would be some undesirable backlash for someone, some where. However, naysayers of his health care bill as a whole have taken this one tiny loophole, and developed it into a much bigger issue, like the situation in Arizona. Leaving that wide open to his (more) conservative opponents was damaging from the start.

Because They Said So
   To keep it simple, what is and isn't constitutional fluctuates more than Oprah's weight. In this particular case, small business is going to be heavily defended due to the state of the economy, and as a result, religious views are going to come more and more into play. What happened to church and state, you may be wondering. Well, your guess is as good as mine. Chances are these bills will either have to be amended before being passed or won't get voted in at all, but the fact that anyone could make a somewhat convincing case about anything regarding my body or reproductive organs is like something out of a George Orwell novel, and if it doesn't scare you young women, you're not paying attention.