Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional.

I just don't get it. What is their motivation? Do they just want to make him look bad because they don't like him? Or are they really so deluded they think that filing suit is going to help in any way? What do they hope to achieve? I just don't get it. Why is it that seven Republican state Attorney Generals have filed suit against the President of the United States? I've been thinking about it since I saw an article in the paper yesterday on the topic. I still don't get it.

Ostensibly the suit is because the government had made it so that religious companies would be required to pay for health care coverage for contraceptives which is felt to be unconstitutional because 'it violates the first amendment'. However, that position was already rescinded and altered so that it would be not the religious affiliated companies themselves that had to pay for the contraceptive coverage but the insurance providers that would have to pay. Then there is the fact that it was not just the President that was responsible for the legal requirement. I know this without bothering to look it up for the simple fact that the President is not a soveriegn and the system of checks and balances that were designed into our government generally prevent him from doing anything without the approval of literally dozens if not hundreds of other people.

Ignoring the fact that if there is blame to be placed it doesn't belong to just one person there are still a lot of problems with their stated goal. Currently the legal requirement is that the insurance providers of religious companies have to pay for contraceptives for employees. It is not the company itself that has to pay it. A religious company might be indirectly paying for it in that they have to pay premiums in order to retain the insurance and some of their premium might go toward the contraceptives- but that is no different than it was before. Unless a religious company were to use a insurance provider that did not cover any sort of contraceptive device (of which there are none, to my knowledge) then their premiums might always have indirectly gone to cover contraceptives for a person covered by that insurance provider that worked at a non-religious company. The position currently is arguably no different than it was in that situation- as far as the company ought to be concerned, at least.

I would even go so far as to say that the original legal requirement (the one that was rescinded) ought to be considered constitutional. Because while it would force a religious company to pay for contraceptives for the employees that might want them it was neither forcing the employers (or employees) to use them nor saying that their ideology was invalid in any way. The employers and employees still retained the right to practice their religion in whatever manner they feel is morally fit. The employers could choose not to use contraceptives if that was their moral choice and the employees could use them if that was their moral choice.

I'll go farther still and say that allowing religious companies the right to deny their employees medical coverage for contraceptives is itself unconstitutional. You may feel morally outraged by the preceding statement and you may have just said or thought something along the lines of: "But freedom of religion is the first amendment." That is precisely it, in fact. A religious company that refused to provide coverage for contraceptives on the basis of 'freedom of religion' would be violating the right to freedom of religion for the person who wanted the contraceptives because the company would be imposing their own religious beliefs that contraceptives are bad on the employee. You may feel there is a inherent conflict there because you either protect the rights of the employee or you protect the rights of the company. I'm pretty sure, though, that there's something in the constitution about it being by and for the people and I don't recall anything about the rights of corporations. The people that own the company, of course, are still allowed to practice their religion as they choose but extending that right to a company would be tantamount to allowing that company to dictate the religious practices of its employees.

So, since the state Attorney Generals really don't have a foot to stand on or much of a chance to win anything from the President I can only assume they're (as Republicans) trying to make the President look bad. That in and of itself is not a bad political move. Given that in recent months the economy and unemployment rate has been improving and the lowering of public opinion about the strongest Republican Presidential cantidate along with the American public's propensity to reelect Presidents the Republicans may feel pressured to help their position. And what better way to help their position than make the President look bad? Unless their lack of forthought backfires, of course. I hope it does. But then I also think that WWIII might not be bad bad solution to our economic troubles (that's a whole other story, though). Regardless, the response I really want to give to the Attorney Generals filing suit against the President is this: "Actually, I think you're being unconstitutional."