By Bill Scher, cross-posted from Campaign for America's Future
It was just one month ago when conservatives were complaining that ABC's George Stephanopoulos was displaying his "bias" while moderating a Republican presidential debate by being "obsessed" with contraception and asking Mitt Romney a "gotcha question" about whether the Constitution has a right to privacy that extends to obtaining contraception.Last month, Romney handled the question by saying "Contraception—it's working just fine. Just leave it alone."
But now, after conservatives began obsessing over the Obama administration's decision requiring insurance companies to include contraception in the preventative services covered for free under the Affordable Care Act, Romney has become a little obsessed himself, falsely claiming, "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience."
The obsession has now reached the Speaker of the House, who declared today that if the President doesn't "reverse" this "attack on religious freedom," then "Congress must."
Like most obsessions, this one makes no sense.
How is a rule, based on the law that Congress passed, providing coverage for a service that literally more than 99% of women use, somehow a blunt attack on religion?
How is a rule that is already the law in 28 states—without much of a peep from conservatives including Mitt Romney who was governor of one of those states—suddenly wreaking secular fascism across the nation?
How is a rule that makes eight states expand the exemption for religious institutions, take away freedom from religious institutions?
Most importantly, how is a rule that explicitly exempts "religious employers" a violation of the separation of church and state?
The rule defines "religious employers" as any non-profit that "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," "primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets," and "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets."
This is the real issue that certain nonprofits and businesses are upset about. Some conservatives and Catholic leaders want the "religious employers" definition to be a giant loophole.
Some schools, hospital, charities and other businesses that are run by Catholics, if they provide health insurance (they still have the "freedom" not to, though starting in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees will pay a fee if they don't), will now be providing health insurance that covers contraception.
Catholics running such businesses will still have their religious freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
What they will lose is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and deny them the equal access to contraception—which, again, nearly everybody uses.
And what might happen if those employees lose their freedom to access contraception?
More unwanted pregnancies. More abortions. More infant mortality. More health problems for expectant mothers.
As anyone who uses contraception knows—which, again, is nearly everybody—contraception is expensive. If your freedom-loving employer doesn't pay you very much, you won't have the freedom to buy contraception consistently, and that pretty much defeats the purpose.
The Obama administration rule respects the constitutional separation of church and state, ensuring that our government does not give dictates to any church. And it also respects the constitutional right to privacy, ensuring that our secular employers cannot impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees.
What conservatives cannot stand is seeing the Constitution in action, stifling their obsession with imposing their beliefs on the rest of us and making us less healthy.
The reality is: contraception is working just fine. And so is the Constitution.
1 comments :
Largely lost in the fuming over some supposed moral dilemma is that THE HEALTH CARE LAW DOES NOT FORCE EMPLOYERS TO ACT CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS--unless one supposes the employers' religion forbids even payment of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion). In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide plans that do not qualify (e.g., without provisions they dislike) and pay lower assessments.
No moral dilemma, no need for an exemption. That the employers must at least pay an assessment is hardly justification for an exemption. In other contexts, for instance, we have relieved conscientious objectors from required military service, requiring them instead to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work. In any event, paying assessment does not pose a moral dilemma, but rather a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers--who don't much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim--or, more plainly, lie--that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions.
Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have confronted such issues and have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
Post a Comment