by F. Grey Parker
This activity involves financial transactional behavior.
One could actually argue that it is part of the service economy.
With this in mind, some private citizens who require access in this marketplace elect to make agreements with private corporations to assist the way in which payments for these services are rendered.
Now... let's say that a small group of social activists feel that these arrangements are "wrong." Based on a series of religious rationales, they fight to interfere with this market by passing laws which forbid these private citizens from entering these private contracts for this legal activity.
It sounds crazy in that context, doesn't it? If, perhaps, you thought I was referring to the tenets of Sharia Law which govern "usury" or "interest," boy are you wrong.
Welcome to the American Republican Party in 2011 and its attempts to render illegal the use of private insurance policies to pay for abortions.
"All around the country, state lawmakers are trying to force insurers not to cover abortions — not just when it comes to the upcoming state exchanges or for public employees, but even in private insurance plans. The ACLU, which is suing to overturn a Kansas law banning private insurance coverage of abortion, provides this handy map to help you keep track of the damage so far. (Theirs is interactive). Conservatives: All about free markets, except when it comes to your reproductive rights."
Eight states now have laws in place which ban all comprehensive private health insurance plans from paying for abortive procedures regardless of the circumstances. That means no life of the mother or rape exception.
There are an additional seven states that now have laws preventing coverage in future state exchange markets. In every remaining state, their are now laws forbidding those on Medicaid, under federal employ or both from possessing health insurance which covers this safe and legal medical procedure.
The immediate threat to American women of childbearing age is profound. What's more, this shines yet another light on the modern right wing's situational ethics.
Think about it. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, designed to prevent the impoverishment of our citizens by putting regulatory minimums between the individual and provably predatory institutions, is called a "threat to freedom." However, the legislative imposition of Dominionist and Christianist moral codes meant to limit individual market decisions involving otherwise legal (and very personal) behavior is... "righteous."
It is increasingly difficult to find any political position for which the hijackers of "conservatism" have not recently made some sort of relativist exception.