Who pays the piper.

Editor,

Fighting religious zealots on the basis of privacy rights probably makes some sort of pragmatic legal sense, but I would rather take the bull by horns and fight religious zealotry itself on First Amendment grounds.

Religious zealots believe their fairy tales so strongly -- or rely on them so critically to control their followers -- that they are obsessed with forcing people who do not share their religious beliefs to conform to them.

Refusing to pay for women's health services on the basis of one's religious beliefs is a clever bit of sophistry. Claiming that "being forced to pay" encroaches on one's religious freedom enables the zealot to inflict their religious strictures on people who do not believe in them.

"Not paying" for a service that someone who is financially dependent on the zealot cannot otherwise afford amounts precisely to forcing that person to behave in accordance with the zealot's religious beliefs, while of course "paying" for that service so that someone else can use it is not using it oneself.

"Paying" is equivalent to "doing" is the zealot's argument.

"Not paying" is equivalent to "preventing" is the result.

This argument, if you think about it for a minute, isn't about religion at all. It is just one more version of our old friend: "Who pays the piper calls the tune."

The 1% can choose to ignore any financial obligation that labor law stipulates because they are paying is their claim. Their personal beliefs are the final arbiter of what is moral, permissible, and worthy of being paid for is their argument. Both are cynical in the extreme.

Re: "The Unfinished Fight Over Contraception" (3/2/2012)