The issue of the contraception mandate may be one of the biggest political stories of the year. It is a law brought forward by the Obama administration that requires all employers to offer contraceptive coverage. This has been a requirement for all company healthcare coverage programs for many years already but religious affiliates have been exempt from following the rules. Obama is looking to change all that by requiring even religion-based employers, who have previously not offered coverage, to participate. Such services required by the contraception mandate will violate some of these religion-based employers’ moral conscience. Rule:
From the contraception mandate issue, two opposing ethical rules are rights and justice/fairness. From Velasquez’s Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, the rights rule is “an individual’s entitlement to something.” It can address the contraception mandate from both an individual and a corporate issue. The rights rule is being processed more from the religious-based employers point of view. The justice/fairness rule being discussed in this case brief is the egalitarianism view. Egalitarianism is “every person should be given exactly equal shares of a society’s or a group’s benefits and burdens.” It addresses the contraception mandate from a systemic issue Analysis:
1. Rights: Religious institutions do not want to have to cover birth control in their insurance plans for employees. Such services required by the contraception mandate will violate these religion-based institutions’ moral conscience. Thus, the contraception mandate can be viewed as an obstruction of the constitutional rights presented in the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document