The hysterical arguments by officials of the Catholic Church (and mimicked by their Republican water carriers) about being forced to abdicate their conscientious religious beliefs to accommodate women who seek to obtain contraceptive devices is reminiscent of the moronic arguments about "Death Panels" for elderly under Obama's health care legislation, Obama's birth place, and, for some fanatics, his Muslimness. These are the kinds of phony arguments that appeal to a segment of the population that H.L. Mencken famously described as the Booboisie. From a constitutional standpoint, the church's claim that its free exercise of religion is being subverted is fallacious and demagogic. One hopes that the Obama administration will refuse to back down in the face of these bullying tactics, and will stick to its sound and fair policy of requiring all health providers -- including hospitals and universities affiliated with the Catholic Church, to provide insurance coverage for women who practice birth control, that is, for the 98 percent of Catholic women in America who use some form of contraception.
The argument made by these alleged conscience-stricken church officials is phony. The following are only a handful of the numerous instances in which the Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that claims of religious freedom and conscience do not override important public policies: the court upheld the power of the Air Force to forbid one of its personnel from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform; upheld the statutory authority of the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious institutions that engage in racial discrimination; permitted timber harvesting and the construction of a road through a portion of a national forest used for religious worship by members of three Native American tribes; prevented prisoners from exercising their religious beliefs to attend a Friday Muslim congregational service; denied unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their state jobs because they used a sacramental narcotic substance in their ceremonial church service; and upheld the suspension from a public school of Native American students who sought to wear their hair in long traditional braids in violation of a school hair-length policy.
Government bodies in all of these cases rejected claims of religious freedom and conscience because an important public policy was deemed to override the individual claims of conscience and religious liberty. But there is no suggestion in any of these cases that the government was hostile to religion or particular religious beliefs, was targeting for invidious motives any particular religion or the freedom of people to worship, or was discriminating against any religion. To be sure, if government is seen to discriminate against religion because of its hostility to that religion -- as was the case in a Florida community which banned the religious practice of Santeria which involved the ritual sacrifice of animals -- then the government would be acting unconstitutionally.
But there is no question that the Obama administration's policy to require religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception does not discriminate against any religion, and serves an important, even compelling public policy. That the Catholic Church is aggrieved by the law's application is no different than the grievances felt by those persons in the above examples who were prevented from freely practicing their faith. Indeed, nobody in the current controversy is being prevented from practicing their faith. No woman is being prevented from using, or not using, birth control. There has to be a fair and balanced accommodation between religious conscience and public policy, and that appears to be the way this regulation is written.
When officials of the Catholic Church resort to claims of conscience, they are not referring to the conscience of the women who seek insurance coverage for birth control; they are referring to their own stricken conscience, and how their own conscience is being adversely impacted by this regulation. But in seeking to curtail the right of thousands of female employees to receive insurance coverage, they are engaging in an obvious and blatant kind of bullying. Indeed, permitting the Catholic Church to deny insurance coverage to its more than 750,000 employees would effectively eviscerate the regulation. But, as noted, the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, albeit a majestic protection, doesn't extend that far.
That many Catholic women use birth control is irrelavant. Many Jews in America are non believers. By Gershman's logic, this would entitle the government to make a law that all Jews must eat bread during passover, perhaps to help the struggling bread industry.
I won't even get into Gershman's argument that contraceptives, paid for by someone else under government coercion, are a "right." I'll just let that stand by itself as an indication of what left leaning academics consider to be a right.
If you read some religious writers and leader, some of them come very close to demanding their own version of morality. That includes most of the current crop of Catholic bishops. It is very important that the body politic gives these persons a resounding "NO."
Frankly, I wonder about this article. The RCC has a long established policy of non pill payment. The Clinton admin was fine with it. Lots of dems are catholic. It seems Pelosi, etc. went out of their way to step on the toes of institutions who they knew did not like paying for the pill. It's not like its a surprise. Right?
The church does not have the right to dictate how an employees wages should be used.
Excellent.
who are practicing their own, 100% effective, forms of 'contraception'.
And I am not referring to celibacy.
Your language is very strong against the church- with words of ‘hysterical, abdicate their conscience, moronic, fanatics, fallacious and demagogic.
How costly is a condom or a birth control pill?. Why does it have to be free?
You are assuming that someone would not pay 25 cents for protection.
That is has to be free otherwise they would not bother.
Insurance is supposed to be a hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
How it has changed - a former housekeeper of ours used to check in to hospital. when she felt like some tender care- like TV and meals in bed and it worked. In South Florida just a few criminals have been charged with Medicare fraud almost approaching a billion dollars. I would notice a hundred dollars but government hardly notices a billion going astray.
I am a catholic but feel the public has ' bitten off its nose to spoil its face' on matters related to the Catholic Church. The Church used to be there for us for medical, hospital, education needs- many times free. Now in our quest for freedom from church and charity we have banished them with a claim we will look after it ourselves - so what a mess, we had medical attention for little and even free now its an entitlement that is bringing down our nation. I dont agree with the catholic church on contraceptives l - but they should not have to pay for it as
If you can't discuss what is actually happening you must not have much of an argument.
If you are an employer, you follow the rules all employers follow.
Your employees have the right to believe and follow any religion they choose, or no religion at all.
You, as the employer, have no say in how your employees behave off the clock.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is the First Amendment strieght from the library of congress, you might wish to look at it in the whole it is writen in plain English so anyone reading it can understand it.