The Huffington Post reports that Missouri State Representative
Paul Wieland and his wife are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services over the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.
His lawyer’s argument is predictably lame:
Making birth control more accessible to the Wielands' daughters -- ages 13, 18 and 19 -- would be "exactly the same" as forcing Mormon parents to "provide a stocked unlocked liquor cabinet in their house whenever they're away for their minor and adult daughters to use," argued Belz, who is special counsel with the public interest law firm the Thomas More Society.
No, Mr. Weltz, it would not. No one is requiring that you have contraception
in your home.
And let’s do a reality check: the Mormon parents probably live in a town with
bars and liquor stores. And those bars and liquor stores will sell booze to
anyone with ID showing they are of legal age to consume it. On the other hand,
the ACA only mandates that insurance plans completely cover the costs; their
daughters would still need to get a prescription – which in the case of the
Wieland’s 13 year old daughter would require parental consent. The Wieland’s
older daughters are of age, and can do as they like. They are adults, Mr. and
Mrs. Wieland.
So it appears that the risk of Mormon kids binge-drinking is actually greater than that of Mr. Wieland's daughters protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies.
But the Wielands feel that their faith is threatened:
"The government is holding a gun to our head and saying this: 'Either you give up your conscience or you give us your money.'"
Of course, the Wielands are not actually paying for the contraceptive coverage: the mandate is that the insurance companies pay for it. Just like Ford or Honda pays for that spare tire in your trunk. You don't have to use that spare tire. But it's there for those who do. Same with birth control: you don't have to use it, but it's there if you want it.
So much for the money argument.
But the Wieland’s argument is still completely without merit, if their religion is
the foundation of it.
Consider the Garden of Eden.
If you are a Christian, you should remember the Garden of Eden: God warned Adam and
Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit - the only rule he made for them. Everything in the Garden was theirs, except for that one tree and its fruit. But God didn't remove the tree. It was
there in the middle of the garden. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't guarded by a
dragon. It wasn't inside a walled fortress. No, it was readily accessible, and
the only thing keeping Adam or Eve from eating it was willpower. It was a
test.
God's plan includes temptation. If you can't resist temptation, you don't get into Heaven. And if there is no temptation, you can't resist it. And if you can't resist it? You don't get into Heaven.
Of course, if you’re a Christian, and particularly
if you are a Catholic,
you know that even if you commit a sin, you can
still get into Heaven
by confessing the sin and performing an act of
absolution, or penance.
Representative Wieland is working against the will of God by attempting to remove temptation. If his daughters do not have the opportunity to choose good over evil, they cannot be considered to be good because they have not been tested.
Nowhere in the Bible does it call on us to REMOVE sin. There is not one place in Scriptures that commands that. There is no commandment to destroy temptation, only to avoid giving in to it.
If he is the "good Catholic" he professes to be, Wieland should be more concerned with how he's raising his daughters and less with all the things in the world he believes defy his faith. Those things exist as part of God’s plan.
If you believe in that sort of thing.
