Re: the Tom Nicholls stuff above…

1. He analogizes contraceptive coverage to an employee that receives meals as compensation also demanding beer. A better analogy would be a Hindu employer offering meals as compensation but refusing to all the employee to order steak or a Jewish employer requiring employees to eat kosher.

2. He states that in requiring contraceptive coverage, employers are now being required to subsidize an employee’s sexual choices. This is just frightfully wrong: A) there are plenty of reasons to prescribe various types of contraceptives that aren’t primarily aimed at avoiding pregnancy and B) as was pointed out, it’s the employee’s money. Leaving that aside, it’s exactly the opposite—it’s the employees subsidizing the employer’s religious beliefs. While health coverage is compensation, it does require that the owner come out of pocket to pay part of the premium. The cost of contraceptive care is now shifted fully to the employee, when it otherwise shouldn’t be due solely to the employer’s alleged “religious freedom”. The employer now spends less on health care coverage and lines its pockets with bigger profits.

3. Finally, this whole concept that a corporation can have religious freedom is absolutely ridiculous. It’s a person as a legal fiction only. If the 1st Amendment can extend to a corporation, why not voting rights?