Joseph Rugg's Health Law Blog

The Harvard Law School Blog, Bill of Health, recently posted an article entitled “Contraceptive Mandates and Conscience – All Objections Are Not Equal.”

… studies show that medical professionals may object to services based on clinically false information. …  If medical professionals make decisions based on ignorance, one can suspect that lay employers and patients do as well.

This suggests that individuals often lack the information necessary to truly assess their stance on morally controversial services.  While the law does (and should) play a role in protecting conscience, it seems unsatisfying when such protection is granted to those holding underdeveloped views, and at the expense of (and detriment to) those seeking legal medical services.

This seems so simple and logical.  We do not let employers make other health-related decisions for their employees, why do we let some employers make reproductive decisions for their employees based on a religious view not shared by their employees?