Contraception controversy consumes D.C.

A new controversy that keeps splitting heads in Washington is a federal rule requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide full contraception coverage to women. There are numerous arguments that are for and against the rule. Liberal groups back the idea saying that there should be gender equality in healthcare and how insurance is dispersed; conservatives are considering it a violation of the first Amendment and pursuing destruction on religious liberty. There have already been three different law suits seeking to block the mandate. Another solution that is being proposed is allowing women that are employed by religious affiliation to obtain the contraception through exchanges created by the Obama healthcare plan. The law seems to teeter voters with the new election coming up, and stepping on the feet of any person that holds their religion is not a good way to lean on people.

The sanction of the separation of church and state has often walked the lines of how to properly abide by these laws. The common mistake on this new and coming law is that churches are the center for change, but churches are exempt and would only include hospitals and schools with religious affiliations. The stir for all the news is trying to find a way to say that the individuals of the church are more important than the church. Senator John Kerry is saying all the right words by saying there is a balance between being respectful of the conscience issues and matters of religious beliefs. Women should not be denied health care in the, religious affiliate, work place because of a clause in a law, instead the goal should be to make sure that the best healthcare is available. I side with the idea that contraception should not be enforced, but rather should be allowed to those in need.