Trying to take the emotion out

Okay, I've been trying to find a way to put this. The HL ruling is separate from the mandate. It is basically about the rules that the government set up to define what constitutes insurance. This is normal regulation. If I want to sell cars, I cannot put wheels on cardboard and say it's a car. Well, I can, but that would be fraud. The government says that if I want to sell a car, it has to have certain things. I can't call my cardboard with wheels a car even if I religiously object to engines but *really* want to call it a car.Likewise, the government said if you are going to sell health insurance, it has to actually insure health. This means covering preventive care as well as other things some religions don't like, such as blood transfusions. Because then the insurance would not be insuring health. It would be "maybe if I like what you use it for and/or if you're lucky" insurance. HL had the option to NOT provide insurance. This would have actually,even with fines, been cheaper than providing insurance. Their argument is that we find it really important that we call this car a car even though it doesn't have an engine. Because we believe in cars, just not engines. (And this is not as crazy as it sounds. There are faiths that reject engines). So what this order says is that the ability of the government to regulate commerce is limited by my assertion of faith. I can argue that I do not believe in meat, but really want to call my product a beef burger and you can't stop me. (That last part IS hyperbole). But this is the issue. Many women need BC. Period. It is a health issue. It is sometimes about preventing pregnancy, and sometimes about preventing death. Or both. And the reason a woman needs it are not your or her bosses business. That is what is wrong with the HL case.