Okay, since the HHS mandate is back in the news again, I’ve got two questions: 

1.  If the owner of a private, for-profit company can make decisions regarding the healthcare coverage of his/her employees based on religious conviction, what’s to keep an employer who is Jehovah’s Witness from refusing to cover blood transfusions or an employer who is a scientologist to refuse to cover any costs related to mental health? How is it preserving “religious liberty” to allow employers to impose their religious convictions onto their employees regarding what they can purchase with their compensation? 

2.    I can’t for the life of me understand this new evangelical preoccupation with birth control. Providing easier/cheaper access to birth control has been shown to dramatically decreases abortions, so it seems like this would be something we pro-lifers would want to support. If cheaper birth control would decrease abortions, why wouldn’t Christians support it? 

Related: Christianity Today recently published a short article on how the morning-after pill does not inhibit implantation, but rather blocks fertilization. And for an interesting look at the problem of categorizing the pill as an abortifacient, check out Libby Anne’s piece on the topic, where she notes that “if your goal is to save ‘unborn babies,’ and if you truly believe that a zygote – a fertilized egg – has the same value and worth as you or I – the only responsible thing to do is to put every sexually active woman on the pill,” because the pill actually reduces the number of zygotes naturally rejected by a woman’s body. 

For another fantastic post on this topic—and a third question, really— check out Rachel Marie Stone’s piece, “What if Jesus is saying it’s okay to pay for things that are against your religion?”  I'm against the U.S. drone strikes that have resulted in the deaths of civilians. Should I refuse to pay my taxes? 

Finally, for my views on abortion, see “Why progressive Christians should care about abortion.”