Why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control coverage trump a society’s collective imperative to reduce unintended pregnancy? Should employers be allowed to withhold a polio vaccine or cataract surgery or safe working conditions on similar “moral” grounds?

via Erika Christakis: What Got Lost in Birth-Control Debate | TIME Ideas | TIME.com.

Yet another example of missing the point on the current religious liberty debate.  Note how Ms. Christakis puts the question:  ‘why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control . . .’  Is this an ’employer’s right’ or is this a constitutionally guaranteed freedom?  Phrasing it this way, she makes her objection appear reasonable by ignoring the religious liberty elephant in the room.

Note, also, the disingenuous comparison to polio and cataracts.  So, getting pregnant, which, if I recall, requires a conscious choice to engage in a specific act, is morally equivalent to contracting polio or having cataracts?  I don’t think so.  Further, are the consequences of pregnancy at all similar to polio or cataracts?  As a parent of three (who has, admittedly, never been pregnant) I’d much rather have kids than polio.  I’d also much rather have kids than cataracts.  In fact, I consider kids a blessing–even though they require significant sacrifice and cost–while I consider polio and cataracts more akin to a curse.

Listen, let’s have a public debate.  I’m all for it.  Let’s discuss the ins and outs, the pros and cons.  But, first, let’s be crystal clear about what the debate is really about.  It’s not about birth control.  It’s about whether the government can violate the 1st Amendment.