Constitutional Law, Religion, Supreme Court

The Parable Of The Bad Analogy

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Bishop William Lori, a representative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that mandating insurance companies cover contraception is like mandating kosher delis serve ham sandwiches. Lori likens the obvious health benefits of not getting pregnant to the claim that “pork is good for you.” Lori calls this the Parable of the Kosher Deli.

The beauty of Lori’s Parable is that it can be used to argue against any health insurance coverage mandate.

If an employer is a Jehovah’s Witness and insists that any employee health insurance plan not cover blood transfusions then any employee who wants that coverage could have to find another policy and pay its entire cost out-of-pocket. Any employees who do not share the employer’s worldview are penalized for those different beliefs.

While Lori makes much of the employer’s freedom of conscience, does not the employee possess that same freedom of conscience? If an employer insists on an employee health insurance plan that covers abortion in cases of rape or incest, and a Catholic employee objects to paying even part of the cost of the insurance, would Lori still support the employer’s freedom of conscience? Or would he suddenly discover that employees deserve the same freedom of conscience?

While many consider an employer’s place of business to be private property wherein the employer rules as king, that business makes use of roads, bridges, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc., paid for by the government. Without this government support, businesses wouldn’t survive. In return for the services provided, the government gets to set standards of behavior toward competitors, customers, employees, and the environment.

This is not a new issue, as evidenced by the Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. United States in 1878. For a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Waite wrote:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

The freedom of religious expression requires the freedom from control of that religious expression from those holding different religious beliefs. If one demands freedom of religious expression for oneself, then one must give up control over the religious expression of those holding different religious beliefs. If one demands freedom of conscience for oneself, then one must give up control over the conscientious beliefs of those holding different conscientious beliefs. One cannot reasonably complain about the denial of freedom of conscience when one’s denying that freedom to others.

H/T: Jonathan D. Sarna, Sarah Posner, Adam Lee, Kashif J. Powell (pdf).

177 thoughts on “The Parable Of The Bad Analogy”

  1. I still have the email and just re-read it with the confirmation in it.

  4. SwM,
    I guess street is aka real life name????

    Of course you’ve all heard the Texas joke about 5-inch, and 3-inch and 1 inch rains; and then it poured down.

    I knew all the hot air from GOP land would get things going weatherwise.

  5. Anonymously Yours, I had a communication that is was you. Now I can cut and paste that communication but I don’t want to break the anonymity of the person that sent it to me.

  7. Elaine M and others,
    It’s great. Hope we see it on MSM soon. And that it starts a loooonnnggg discussion, like you know Afganistan, etc.

    PS again Congratulations on the news finding.

  8. Now you’re being honest….. Posting personal information is a bad ideal….. I agree….. Especially when it’s a private citizen… Geeze…. I don’t even know what street you live on… I think I know the city.. But never posted that either……

    OK bdaman…….. Just for you……

  9. Elaine M
    I published first yesterday with the same heading: Something off-topic but to make everybody glad….. but never mind my pettiness.
    Are we glad it is spreading? Keep it up. It’s one of the things that scares’em.

    If only we could find Obamas sensitive point on civil rights.
    As I’ve noted it has come up as a policy category on his dropdown select list. It wasn’t before.

  12. It is raining so hard I haven’t left yet. Maybe the drought if finally over.

  14. Ms. Elaine this thread is about Kosher foods please do not try and hijack the thread. They get mad when you do that. You have to be disciplined in order to post here.

  15. I know what you mean SWM

    I feel for him I just can’t reach him. If I could reach through my screen…..feel the same way about that damn Gene but his sensei probably taught him how to defend that. He’s an expert in marital arts.

  16. Here’s news that is sure to make some of you smile:

    BREAKING: 98 Major Advertisers Dump Rush Limbaugh, Other Right-Wing Hosts
    By Judd Legum on Mar 10, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/10/442048/breaking-98-major-advertisers-dump-rush-limbaugh/

    Industry website radio-info.com has the scoop:

    When it comes to advertisers avoiding controversial shows, it’s not just Rush From today’s TRI Newsletter: Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway). As you’ll see in the note below, those “environments” go beyond the Rush Limbaugh show

    “To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory…They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).’

    This helps explain why, on Rush Limbaugh’s flagship station WABC, almost of the commercial breaks were filled with unpaid pubic service announcements. You can check out the list of the 50 advertisers who were known to have dropped Limbaugh before this report here.

    But it’s not just Limbaugh that these advertisers want to disassociate with, but other big names in right-wing radio too. As the Daily Beast’s John Avalon notes, this is unprecedented in the 20-plus years that Limbaugh and his imitators have been on the air and could spell real trouble for an industry that’s already suffering demographically. Women ages 24–55 are the prize advertising demographic, but Limbaugh and other conservative hosts have steadily alienated these listeners over the years, so the sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke were “a perfect storm.”

    The advertising flight is reminiscent of Glenn Beck’s Fox News program. After major companies refused to advertise on Beck’s show in light of racially insensitive comments, he was left with just fringe businesses like survival seed banks and gold sellers. Not long thereafter, he left Fox, reportedly under pressure.

  17. Now you’re being honest….. It’s all personal…. Thank you….. You’re attacking the poster now to the poring…..

  18. Oh my bad your right and you don’t do this …….. AY does that ……… alot……………..know what…………I………… mean,Vern

  20. Bdaman
    Don’t know where AY stands on you, but you should have noticed I post longer things than he does, and am not at all cryptic as he, but will use odd allusion at time.
    Poor you, are there boogymen after you.
    Had a collegue, Harry, he ´was a math whiz, but his shizo got to him one day. They were beaming him with the radar, it hurt him. Have you notice similar problems when I’m on the site.
    Poor you, boo hoo. If you’d only shut up some time you might win or at least get support, but you babble constantly. Currently at 59 percent and going down. Are you tired for the moment.
    You know I can provide babble too. But ho hum will stop and find other amusements than torturing the handicapped.
    Not that you are, I would side with Mike S., if I could remember what he wrote.

Comments are closed.