Those that oppose the rule cite religious freedom arguing that requiring religiously affiliated institutions (not churches proper) to provide birth control coverage (not birth control itself) it is a violation of their religious rights and beliefs and violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
It is worth noting what the Federal Constitution actually says. Herewith the entire text:
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.Surprisingly, the Federal Constitution actually provides a rather limited set of religious rights. Fortunately, over the years various courts have materially extended those rights to provide an extensive set of religious rights. Even so, and notwithstanding the free exercise language of the First Amendment, religious rights are not absolute. Polygamy is illegal even though it is a belief in several contemporary religions. Churches are exempt from some but not all taxes and labor laws. Churches are bound by drug laws. While our laws provide for many religious freedoms they do not allow absolute religious freedom.
Now comes the matter of birth control as an element of health insurance. Is it reasonable, even under the protection of the First Amendment, for a religiously affiliated institution such as a university or hospital to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance policy?
Common Sense says no for several reasons. First, such institutions are not inherently religious in their operation since their principal purpose is other than religious practice. Simply put, they are not churches. Second, such institutions routinely employ people who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs. Moreover, the law already broadly prohibits employment discrimination based on religion! Thus an institution claiming a religious exemption to the provision of health insurance coverage for birth control contains significant elements of belief imposition on citizens that do not share those beliefs. Finally, notwithstanding insurance coverage, those who do not believe in birth control remain entirely free to forego birth control services.
Common Sense recognizes that an argument might be made that requiring a religiously affiliated organization to pay for birth control coverage is a violation of the practice of their religious beliefs. But, as pointed out previously, some abridgments are in fact allowed.
Common Sense notes, for Catholics, the principal source of the current controversy, birth control in the form of abstinence is in fact permissible. This birth control is not inherently wrong and the issue is about the technical means of birth control Moreover, a significant majority of Catholics already practice non-sanctioned birth control. Thus any issue is not between Catholics and DHHS but between the Catholic hierarchy and DHHS.
Common Sense believes that government at all levels should with very rare exception not get into religious beliefs. Just as importantly, religious organizations should not get into government. Mixing religion and politics is a highly toxic brew that almost invariably poisons democracy and freedom. That's just common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment