Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby

Much chatter of late regarding the recent US Supreme Court opinion in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. I haven’t read the opinion – too long, too impenetrable – but that will not stop me from chattering a bit myself:

It’s unfortunate that medical insurance is tied to one’s employer. If individuals could afford insurance without employer assistance, Hobby Lobby’s religious objections to contraception would be moot.

It’s likewise unfortunate that basic medical care is so expensive as to require insurance. Remember when medical insurance was only for catastrophic expenses? When did that change?

Reducing unwanted pregnancies (and/or sexually-transmitted diseases) benefits everyone. Contraception should therefore be cheap and ubiquitous, with no stigma attached to its use. (Bonus points for instilling in young men greater awareness of their responsibilities in this area. If that’s possible.)

Instead of wasting time & energy arguing whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to require employers to provide their employees with medical insurance that covers contraception, perhaps the gov’t should be working to remove employers, insurers and itself from the process altogether.

(I suppose if all that came to pass, we’d be arguing whether the federal government can require doctors & pharmacists to provide contraception. That’s a more difficult question.)