If you have been keeping up with the news, there has been an uproar regarding President Obama and his new healthcare plan, more specifically the matter of contraceptives. Under President Obama’s healthcare laws, all employers are required to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including a range of birth control, which will come at no cost to the employee. As a result of this decision, as stated in this article, Obama has received much objection from the conservative Republicans and the Catholic bishops. The Catholic bishops feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in violation of their moral opinions and teachings. In spite of urging from the Catholic Church and Conservative Republicans, President Obama has made his decision and opted not to broaden the exemption.
In conjunction with this, on Friday, in hopes of squelching the opposition, Obama has come up with a compromise that allows for an employer who morally objects to contraception to opt out and instead inform its female employees where they can get coverage outside of the employee health plan. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception. “The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.”
Here we have another classic case of an organization trying to have their values/beliefs imposed on people through government injunction. These churches want the government to keep their noses out of their belief systems, but they have no problem accepting the benefits that the government provides, from police protection to street repair to outright public funding of their "secular" works via the Faith Based grants. And what are they asked to do in return for all of these tax-free benefits and funding? Obey the law. The entire relationship between the tax-payers’ dollars and the church institutions needs to be re-evaluated. Why should tax payers be forced to fund an institution that will not follow the law when operating a business that serves the public like a hospital or university? Why shouldn’t a Catholic hospital be required to provide essential health services? Contraception is not merely used for birth control, it’s also used for a great deal of other health purposes, not to mention decreasing unintended pregnancies, which serves to reduce the number of abortions. A hospital is required to serve any person who needs medical care, not just those who agree with a particular religious belief system, i.e. the Catholic Church. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the health care business if they aren't willing to actually provide medical services.
In this way, any right of action based on belief cannot be absolute. Therefore, the right to practice a religion cannot mean that any individual or organization should be allowed to do whatever they want and justify it as their "sincere religious belief". There is nothing automatically sacred about action based on religious beliefs, no matter how sincere. It is clear in the Constitution that religious laws of God are separate from the Laws of Man. And that freedom to worship is on parity with the freedom not to.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I agree with you comment that the structure of tax dollars and religious organizations should be re-evaluated. The issues that you raise in you post bring me back to when we discussed the Bob Jones University court case. As we see in this case, by treating religious beliefs as special but certain actions as a violation of law, there leaves an ambiguous line on which religious beliefs and actions should be treated as separate. I agree that it is unfair for all to pay taxes for such a plan but only certain institutions will provide the services.
I think that this compromise is competely fair. With this compromise everyone wins, the churches are no longer obligated to provide insurance that provides contraceptives and those who work for the churches who would like to obtain contraceptives can still get them. Although within the courts we have seen that churches are deemed to be separate, I think that one could argue that the church is facilitating violations of equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Not allowing somone who works for the church to obtain contraceptives could be seen as violating equal protection rights. They are not being treated the same as those who work for non- religious affiliated businesses.
Jon Stewart had a good point on his show last night, he said that any religion that feels it is being "prejudiced" against by the U.S. Government should simply look at their federal taxes. Since approved religious institutions pay little to no taxes their whole argument of being "unfairly" targeted is a load of baloney. As you said in your post, the main issue Catholics have with the plan is its involvement of birth control. However, as you also pointed out, contraceptives are not limited to birth control. I would argue that halting the spread of STDs is more important to birth control but the Catholic bishops have chosen to focus purely on the birth control aspect. I think Obama's compromise is a good one, as it gives leeway to both sides of the issue. However, I like the fact that Obama has stood up for this healthcare plan, and is not afraid of the Catholic church using it's bully pulpit to keep this plan from coming into fruition.
I agree with everyone's comments and the issues Calli laid out. Contraceptives do help in more than just pregnancy prevention. If they do get tax exemption and the government is not forcing those who oppose contraception to take it, then I do not understand how their religious freedom is being hurt. I agree it is a violation of rights for the Catholic employer to refuse to provide contraception to its employees. When you compare the first amendment to the proposed health plan, I do not understand where they believe they are being persecuted. They are being allowed to practice, but they should not be able to stand in the way of people obtaining the contraception they need.
This was a smart political compromise that Obama made. I believe he is sincere in his interest in health care coverage for every individual. However, as a constitution scholar, he also understands religious liberty. His argument is framed with that understanding and highlights that the constitution provides this. I am a proponent for women having access to health care, and the bill is both a bold move and a victory for women’s health care. However, I questioned whether, legally, a religious institution can be forced to cover preventative care free of cost when they have a religious objection to it
This was a smart political compromise that Obama made. I believe he is sincere in his interest in health care coverage for every individual. However, as a constitution scholar, he also understands religious liberty. His argument is framed with that understanding and highlights that the constitution provides this. I am a proponent for women having access to health care, and the bill is both a bold move and a victory for women’s health care. However, I questioned whether, legally, a religious institution can be forced to cover preventative care free of cost when they have a religious objection to it
I agree that President Obama made a wise decision by working with the Catholic church. However,the church should be happy to get such a great deal since it has been reported that numerous Catholics are not as upset by birth control as the church.
Olivea points out that this may violate the protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but I wonder what is the difference between this case and the Lutheran teacher with narcolepsy who was fired and not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Not that I am in favor of the church being exempted from providing birth control as other organizations must under the plan, but if you are on birth control for any number of medical issues other than contraceptives, then health insurance policies that do not normally cover birth control will cover it. This is something I know from personal experience because I had insurance at one point that would not cover mine and because my dose needed to be so precise I could not go through the health department. My doctor faxed something to the insurance company explaining that it was medically necessary and they started covering it for me.
I think that you bring up some great points referencing the claims of religious institutions gaining certain services. That said, I believe it is important to recognize that Obama no longer forces the employer to provide that coverage thus lowering their cost into the Obama care plan but all that is requested is that they be knowledgeable about where a woman can get the same services from organizations that do support the option. This request is not a huge request and support is different from offering it to the person. A person is allowed to choose whether or not they ascribe themselves to all the beliefs of the Church. I thin an interesting note is that not all of the religion ascribes themselves to a strict no on birth control. With such internal debates in the tradition, can some in the tradition say they are the collective voice? I think this is a great article that begs the question of if there is a separation at all, should the government change policy based on a religion's request? I do not ask this to be insensitive but I ask at what point a religious tradition can begin to challenge the rights of an individual in the society at large?
This article is a follow up of what might be the hottest topic in Government/religious news.
Calli has develop this post in a broader perspective that even made me look outside the controversy and content of this issue.
Going off of a statement Calli made is a reason i think church officials should lay off on their so call rejections.She recaps on an interpretation of the constitution inferring that the Laws of Man be separate from laws of God. This should let the churches know that this law was created in equality for all and not an intentional attack on their liberty.
Another point made in this post is the fact that government is a means of funding and contributor of their foundation (as they are equally to other organiztions). This compormise is not a restrictions on their freedom.
Obama has made a point to compromise because of his interaction with religion but the government need to keep this separation between church business and state business.
This is an interesting development. I do think that the new compromise seems like a fair one at first glance; however the same issues are still at play. The church does not want to support an action that morally goes against their beliefs. Should they have to provide information to their employees on how or where to get the birth control? I believe that would be in violation of their religious belief and thus their freedom of religion. W hen an employee chooses to work at a religious institution it is fair to assume that they are aware of the religious beliefs and practices. The church should not have to go against their religious beliefs, and the government demanding they do, doing so I believe would be an infringement on their Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, specifically the “ establishment clause”, that states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
I believe if taxpayers fund the Catholic Church then there shouldn’t be any exemption to the rule, however I believe that religious views should be respected. President Obama respected the views of the church by making a fair decision.
Angela brings up interesting point where she touches on the fact that birth control is not normally covered by health insurance. This makes you think whether or not the whole argument with Catholic Church is worthwhile, since its not funded by most health insurance.
Cali also made some great pointers where she points out that contraception is not just used for birth control, it is also used for others health issues. Whether you are using contraception for birth control or other health reasons, some things are personal; and I don’t think it’s the church is doing a good job at respecting privacy.
Actually, my point wasn't that most health care doesn't cover birth control. In fact I've only ever had one policy that didn't. My point was that if you need birth control for reasons other than just contraception then insurance policies that would not cover it otherwise will cover it.
Although the compromise seems fair in Protestant eyes, it seems like we should evaluate the situation from a Catholic perspective. I completely support Obama's decision, and in my opinion, there wasn't a need for the compromise, especially when it fails to address the point of opposition for the Catholics anyways. Having said this, it also doesn't feel right to continue imposing liberal, Protestant legislature on other religious groups without fully understanding their arguments against it. The Catholic Church has had a long history of tyranny, but beating it down with Protestant values seems as unjust as an inquisition. Obviously I’m split on this issue. Would people have the same opinions on this matter if it were the Pueblo Native Americans rather than the Catholics, a religious group with a history of oppression rather than tyranny? How does a religion’s history effect our current approach to it?
Post a Comment