Our own Stone recently posted a pretty ballsy piece: Birth Control for Liberty In it, she makes several challenge-worthy assertions. I’m here to take on those challenges.
The first is that “A lot of the healthcare reform laws are actually good for personal liberty (though not necessarily corporate liberty).”
I’ll first point out that any violation of corporate liberty is a violation of personal liberty. Corporations don’t make decisions. People do. So any limit to a corporation’s decision making freedom is necessarily a limit on at least one person’s decision making freedom.
Stone then debunks the “taxpayer-funded birth control” myth. Which, good on her. It’s important that libertarian women, all women really, understand the actual mechanism of the birth control mandate in ObamaCare. The mandate forces employers, not taxpayers, to buy insurance plans that cover birthcontrol.
But then she claims that the mandate will save taxpayers a huge amount of money by reducing the number of unplanned children. “Giving women the opportunity to establish a career before having children also means fewer families on food assistance, TANF, et cetera.” This assertion is deeply problematic.
First, ObamaCare, and the mandate only applies to full-time employed women. Therefore, even if these women get pregnant because somehow without ObamaCare they can’t afford birth control even though they’re fully employed and it costs $4/month, they won’t go on federal assistance because they have full-time jobs and don’t quality.
Secondly because birth control, with or without ObamaCare, can already be obtained insanely cheaply yet unplanned pregnancies persist, there must be something more than access to and cost of birth control at play here.
Simply put, it defies common sense to assert that covering birth control for fully-employed women will have any appreciable effect whatsoever on welfare rolls.
But let’s go back to the myth versus the reality. ObamaCare forces employers to choose insurance plans that cover birth control. I think it’s pretty apparent that forcing someone to buy a product they find morally reprehensible is a huge violation of religious liberty.
I want to make clear that there is no judgement in that statement about the morality of birth control itself. But if we are to be defenders of the freedom to not buy products that violate our consciences, then we must stand in opposition to the birth control mandate in ObamaCare.
Stone’s argument is based on the presumption that mandating birth control will somehow reduce welfare pull, and that in doing so we are increasing liberty, despite the obvious obstructions to liberty the mandate poses. However, in the light that it is clearly impossible to lessen the welfare pull with the individual mandate, all we are left with is a violation of liberty.
Photos by DonkeyHotey