let's talk about sex, baby.

That's right. It's time to talk about sex. Or contraception, rather.

I read an article in The New York Times on Monday that discussed one of the important implications of the new health care law: contraception. The new law requires insurance plans to cover birth control without co-payments for employees. Some institutions are opposed to such policy because of their religious beliefs, including houses of worship, but the Obama administration ruled this month that there would be an exception for religious employers. However, the article said, "a religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do." Many Catholic colleges strongly oppose this ruling and are resisting it, outraged that a policy would force them to go against their beliefs and "finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."

Now, I'm no Catholic. I'm not even remotely religious. So, it's kind of hard for me to understand why members of an organized religion would feel the need to regulate their employees' access to contraception. Yes, it may not adhere to good Catholic rules, but the choice to abide by such rules is a personal one. It must be left to the individual to decide if she or he wants to abide by Catholic teachings (or any other religion).

If these bishops and nuns, politicians and pundits would just take a step back and think about the people -- the women -- that this ruling affects and imagine what it would be like to be someone else for a change, then they just might understand how important it is that this law is implemented and enforced. That's the idea behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" in his theory of justice as fairness. People would not make judgments based on their standing in society because they would be behind the "veil" and ignorant of all "knowledge of particular facts about themselves, about one another, and even about their society and its history," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They would not know their social status or class position. They would not know how much money they have or how intelligent they are. They would not know their age or gender. Rawls says that they would not even be aware of "their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

Those who oppose the contraception coverage requirement or any other part of the new health care law would think thrice if they stood behind a veil of ignorance. They might make different decisions if they did not know their age or sex or social status. They might want every woman to have access to birth control because they just might be that woman who needs it. They might want socialized medicine because they may be that homeless person who has hit hard luck upon hard luck.

Who knows? We might all make different, better and more compassionate choices if we did not have that cushion of whatever it may be -- white, wealthy, male, American, Christian, attractive, etc. Because we could all very well be someone else.