Anna Franzonello of AUL wrote a piece for The Corner at National Review Online.
Sandra Fluke’s lamentation over “a wave of anti-contraception state legislation” makes it sound as if Arizona and other states are banning birth control. That is demonstrably not the case. A student at a prestigious law school, who presumably is familiar with the legislation she writes about, Ms. Fluke should understand that her rhetoric amounts to a politically motivated scare tactic.
This inaccurate framing of the issue is just the beginning of a series of inexcusable flaws in Ms. Fluke’s article. She declares that, on the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, “It is hard to believe that we are having this conversation” about permitting exemptions for those with religious objections to state-mandated contraceptive coverage.
However, the argument Ms. Fluke wants to advance runs counter to Griswold and subsequent Supreme Court cases touching on “contraception.” No matter what one’s opinion of the merits of the decisions, it is clear that these cases cannot legitimately be read to give any patient or the government the authority to violate the fundamental freedom of conscience by forcing private institutions to pay for health insurance covering “contraception” against religious, moral, or ethical objections. Rather, an administrative rule mandating that everyone participate in, by paying for, the contraceptive choices of others actually turns on its head a key Supreme Court principle: the freedom from government intrusion on matters of contraception. By contrast, according to Ms. Fluke, et al., the so-called “right to privacy” now demands coerced public participation.
Click here to read the whole thing.
