WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.1. Insurance is the pooling of risk of unanticipated casualties. Outside the rare event of rape, coitus is entirely voluntary. Thus, there is no way to "insure" birth control. The mandate is equivalent to requiring your homeowner's insurer to cover your gambling losses in Vegas. The only way to avoid moral hazard would be to charge you for the entire amount of your own money you're prepared to risk. So, premiums must rise to cover the cost of these purely voluntary outlays, er, expenses.
The justices said Tuesday they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
2. Sexual intercourse between two adults is not generally a public matter as would not be, likewise, a person's choice to use or not use birth control. The idea of a legislature passing laws on matters of personal choice which do not otherwise intrude on the preferences of others is absurd. Incidentally, if we're going to socialize the cost of birth control, thereby deeming sex a public good, then it's an easy argument from there that receipt of net benefits from government should be conditioned on sterilization.
Irony of ironies, we had positive fertility rates back when people had to pay the full freight for their own babymaking.
3. Related to 2, if the judiciary is having to pass constitutional muster on such narrow, arcane items, then rational public policy debate is not happening, and the people are effectively conceding their incapacity for self-governance.