Health & Health Care Feed

Time investment

I like this article on "time investment" rather than "time management."  I realize that this general approach is actually mine.  I weekly, particularly at work, make a to-do list that priortizes time for the major projects I'm working on and seeks to eliminate, delegate, or simplify any other projects.  I'm also generally really good at setting boundaries between work and personal life.

Foster parenting is throwing wrenches into my existing systems and strategies, and I'm having to adapt.

Contraception and Religious Liberty

A great ruling on this issue that has been vexing the republic over the last year.  The judge dismissed the argument that a health plan covering contraception violates the religious views of the business owner.  

Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote, she explained. The health care coverage would offend the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an employee “makes an independent decision to use the plan” to obtain contraceptives; and that independent decision is no different from an employee using part of a salary to pay for contraceptives, which clearly would not harm the employer’s right to free exercise of religion.

The 1993 statute “is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others” and “does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own,” Judge Jackson wrote.


An interesting, critical, take on the ruling

I do not disagree with Michael Gerson's criticisms here, though I do not fully agree with them.  There is danger in what he fears, but there is also some use of wisdom, which I do want from judges.  I know that O'Connor, for instance, had a very Platonic view of the role of judge as one who must maintain peace and stability in society.  There is danger in this, as there is danger in every approach.

An excerpt:

To find the health-care law constitutional, Roberts reimagined it. It was outcome-based jurisprudence, even if the intended outcome was institutional harmony. It was an act of judicial arrogance, even in the cause of judicial deference. And it raises deeper concerns. Unmoored from a reasonable interpretation of the law, institutionalism easily becomes the creed of the philosopher-king — hovering above the balance of powers, tinkering benevolently here and there, instead of living within the constraints of the system.

Roberts has been praised for striking a grand political compromise that the political class could not achieve — for cooling tempers, for granting each side a useful measure of victory and defeat. But who died and left Roberts the job of Daniel Webster?