Throughout legal battles regarding the free exercise of religion, there has been a particularly large focus on people's, as well as organizations', sincerely held religious beliefs to oppose abortion and promote the holding that life begins at conception. A case concerning this issue is Diocese of Albany v. Harris. This case covers the struggle between the New York State Provision requiring employers to provide employees with the opportunity for abortion in their healthcare plan and the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs, directly countering one another.
In 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provision required employers to provide healthcare services to their employees, including contraceptives and abortifacients, or otherwise face hefty fines upon non-compliance. Consequently, this was challenged by religious institutions and people who held countering religious beliefs. One of these groups to challenge this provision was the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns who made it their life mission to aid the elderly poor. Winning three victories with the Supreme Court, the Little Sisters of the Poor were successful in safeguarding their religious holdings so that contraceptives and abortifacients did not have to be provided due to their disagreement based on religious holdings. However, these victories were interrupted by the 2017 provision of New York to require employers to cover literal abortions in their healthcare plans. Exemptions were only granted to religious organizations with a concrete goal of safeguarding religious values and serving religious people. The result of this narrow exemption was the exclusion of many religious entities, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, that provide adequate community service to people on a non-faith basis.
As a result of this presumed injustice, a coalition of religious groups was formed, and New York was sued based on the claim that the 2017 New York provision violated their religious holdings. This alliance united based on the belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is an unspeakable sin. If the court denies the coalition's request to uphold these religious liberties, they claim that their religious beliefs will be violated. Therefore, given the facts of this case, does the 2017 New York provision that requires employers to include actual abortions in their healthcare plans despite violating the sincerely held religious beliefs of the coalition violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Numerous salient issues must be considered to assess the constitutionality of the 2017 New York State provision regarding the religious holdings of the coalition members. First, a clear and substantial burden is present on the religious organizations making up the coalition. This burden is undeniable because these individuals are forced to either follow their deeply held spiritual values and pay a hefty fine alongside this, or sacrifice their beliefs to avoid payment. According to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the aim is to "protect citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a 'public morals' or a 'compelling' governmental interest." The coalition members are not presenting a threat to society, so there should be no sacrifice of beliefs in this scenario. With that said, there is a compelling governmental interest in this provision to provide women with adequate and complete protection of bodily autonomy in healthcare. This is stated by and pushed for by abortion activists, but the very provision does not constitute the least restrictive means of doing so. There are other manners to ensure that women can have cost-free abortions without impeding the religious rights of a group of people.
This case can be seen as an extension of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) concerning the same 2011 HHS provision of providing contraceptives and abortifacients in employee healthcare plans. The court ruled in favor of the devout-Christian family of the Greens, who claimed that providing their employees with this healthcare that facilitated abortion violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. The reasoning used in Burwell can be applied to the Diocese; the significant difference between the two cases is providing contraceptives and abortifacients to providing actual abortions. In both cases, a continual battle exists between bodily autonomy and religious belief.
4 comments:
Great post! I agree with the need to uphold religious liberties while also ensuring access to comprehensive healthcare. It is necessary for the state to recognize individuals' religious beliefs. As we have learned, the court can not question the sincerity of the beliefs. So, in cases that are as contested as abortion rights, that comes into play, it is important to recognize the beliefs while also providing healthcare services to women. I agree with Tess that some middle ground must be found in balancing these two issues.
Hi Tess! Excellent post for your blog discussion. Your case was similar to the one that I wrote about this week and I find some interesting similarities. I understand where these religious coalitions are coming from in that they feel as though it is a direct violation to their Free Exercise rights to provide any insurance for abortion coverage. But I do think it is more important to understand that not everyone holds a similar religious belief. America is fully of vastly different religious sects, and under the First Amendment all are supposed to be treated equally under the eyes of the law. Therefore, you cannot impose what you believe onto others just because you believe the doctrine you subscribe to is the moral one. By imposing your own views onto others, you are restricting their own religious liberties to protect your own. You accurately point out the Hobby Lobby case as a prior precedent, and that too was decided incorrectly by the Supreme Court because it uplifts one religious sect above others. In my opinion, no other person's religious beliefs should dictate the level of medical care one receives. They should be two separate affairs as religion is supposed to be a private matter. And that is why I believe with you and Devin ultimately that there is definitely a middle ground that can be found in which the government can impose less restrictive means for its interests.
Great post Tess! I agree with your reasoning and I liked you comparison to the Burwell case too, as well as Hobby Lobby. Given the facts of the case, I too would say it was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. You're right that theres definitely a fair debate about where forcing workplace policy on religious folk crosses a line, and I thought you balanced that well.
Great post, Tess! I agree with the other commenters, and also what we discussed in class. I think exempting Hobby Lobby in the Burwell case, but not this case is wrong. Especially since we are dealing with a non-profit, I believe they should be granted an exemption, even if they don't meet the supposed requirements. I think there are many valid arguments on both sides, and I like Anthony's point about religious beliefs not dictating someone else's health care, but I do think since this organization, unlike Hobby Lobby, is not for profit, they should have an exemption. This means that such a burden was a violation of the plaintiffs' Free Exercise rights.
Post a Comment