When does religious liberty shift from the freedom to practice one's faith to the imposition of that faith on a diverse public? Or to put it another way, when does liberty for some become discrimination against others?
This is more than a theoretical question. It's one that is playing out right now with a proposed federal rule that implements part of the Affordable Care Act. The rule requires employers to include in their health insurance plans coverage for contraception and other basic preventive health services. The real-life question has to do with religious organizations that are employers but believe contraception is a sin. Should they be exempt from the rule?
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which promulgated the proposed rule, the answer is a qualified yes. But a number of religious organizations that would not be exempt under the rule are fighting to broaden its exemption requirements to include them.
The proposed HHS rule says that employers must meet the following criteria in order to qualify:
That leaves out large Catholic universities such as Notre Dame that employ people of many different religions -- as well as those with no religion -- yet do not want their health care plans to cover contraception. They argue that contraception violates Catholic teachings and to be forced to include it is a serious infringement of their religious liberty.
Those on the other side argue that religious organizations such as Notre Dame that choose to operate in a pluralistic secular democracy must respect the religious liberty and consciences of their employees, many of whom are not Catholic or religious at all. For virtually all these workers, contraception is not a sin but an essential part of moral responsibility around creating a family and parenting. To deny them access to such a basic health service is to unfairly impose a particular set of theological beliefs on people who believe differently.
What's more, say proponents of the rule, this isn't even a matter of the Catholic Church vs. other religions, since the vast majority of Catholic women -- 98 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute -- use contraception. Such a statistic raises an important question: Who is the Catholic Church? Is it the millions of people in the pews who disregard official church teachings in some cases, or is it a much smaller group of church leaders?
Religious organizations cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand claim a religious exemption that requires everyone who works for them to abide by their religious beliefs, and at the same time employ people whose worldview and beliefs are very different from theirs. Here's where religious liberty for some is likely to turn into religious discrimination against others.
One last point: A principle that virtually everyone can agree on is the importance of reducing the need for abortion in the United States. A sure way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by making contraception accessible and affordable. Another desirable goal is to increase the number of healthy pregnancies, healthy babies and strong families -- all of which are more likely when women use contraception to plan their families and ensure healthy intervals between their children.
Religious liberty is written into the First Amendment of the Constitution. You can't get much more bedrock than that. Throughout our history, scholars and advocates on the ground have contested the amendment's scope and scale. That is what is happening now. It is democracy in action, with each side putting forth its best arguments, seeking to persuade policymakers and the public.
As they battle it out, two other American values will likely come into play -- pragmatism and compromise. We usually manage to work things out, with each side giving up something and getting something in return. Such a compromise could happen in this case, and in fact one was recently proposed by Melissa Rogers, a First Amendment religious liberty expert and scholar.
Rogers looks to state laws in Hawaii and New York, where religious employers may refuse to provide coverage for contraception, but then must provide workers with access to an outside equally affordable health care plan that does include contraceptive coverage.
While not perfect, it is workable and partly satisfies each side. In these days of vituperative rhetoric and demonized opposition, that might just count as a win-win.
Follow Sally Steenland on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ssteenland
Cecile Richards: The Craziness in Congress
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free ...
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The Catholic Health Association of the United States
Catholics Support IOM's Recommendations on Birth Control ...
If a Catholic University like Notre Dame hold true to their belief that contraceptives are a sin then who is the federal government to tell them, "hey too bad. Shove it and pay for them anyways."
The employees should be responsible about where they are getting hired and the beliefs and policies of that organization.
Again I feel the federal government has outstepped its boundaries. Is forced cosmetic plastic surgery next?
Something here just seems wrong.
Preventing a pregnancy is not a medical issue.
Now a blood transfusion in most cases I can possibly think of is medical and usually urgent.
Similarly with abortion. The last stat I had found said that only 9 percent (give or take based on natural error) were for health concerns, rape or incest. So less than 10% of all abortions in the United States are elective and medically unecessary.
In both cases why should an employer be forced to insure them if they do not believe in these practices. Pro-choice people like to talk about not forcing beliefs on others but this legislation does just that. It forces pro-choice ideology on others.
Again I have to fall back to the comparison to cosmetic plastic surgery. Should an employer be forced to cover that. Its frivilous and medically unnecessary
So I am going to have to dissent on this issue. And if I were a buisness owner/employer I wold fight this tooth and nail. If my hypothetical employees dont agree then they can choose not to work for me.
Thanks for this fine discussion and especially for emphasizing the fact that that way too many abortions are the result of backwards doctrine on contraception.
Michele Somerville
Also you talk about others choices but what about the choices of the organisation to follow its own moral religious guidelines? The government should not be able to force this on people, at least not at the federal level. State and local maybe but not federal.
If the religious pro-life people go away, a solution to end the need (the root cause) for abortions can work. Religion is the Problem here, not the solution.
Religion is a big part of the problem of over population; then they provide only a very small fraction of the aid needed for them problem they helped create, and pat themselves on the back for doing a good job. Also, organized religion has never put forth a workable plan to end poverty and homelessness.
Religion is them problem, no the solution.
hmm. So a religious university that choose to operate out of religious convictions but hires non-religious staff in order to bring diversity of thought into the university must now abandon their religious convictions because of those hiring practices.
You can't hire only Catholics. Its discrimination. This seems like an assault, intentional or unintentional, on religion.
This alone seems grounds for compromise on the issue.
Either way, to force women to toe the party line when they don't follow your religious beliefs is not only unconstitutional, it's also plain rude.
Discovered Catholic girls way back in 1963 when I was 15: what a great find.
At the church door. They can peaceably meet inside the church with like-minded church people, and when they come out of that door they enter the land where their silly ideas about magical men and bronze age social strictures have no place deciding what's right for their non-churchy neighbors.
OK...I'm fantasizing again.
No birth control more babies to prop up their fading numbers.