I must respectfully disagree with David, below. In my view of things, using the blunt power of the state to force Catholic universities and hospitals to buy and provide their employees with free contraceptives, including morning-after abortion-inducing drugs, makes a mockery of religious liberty. And that’s regardless of the fact that most Catholics use and approval of birth control (many of whom may find contraceptives acceptable but don’t extend that view to the morning-after pill).
These institutions are Catholic, not secular, by their charters and in their running. And the church, rightly or wrongly, considers contraception and abortion to be sins. If the state can forced religious institutions to violate the tenets of their faith, then what can’t it do?
The road to the total state may be pleasing to those of the leftist persuasion (at least as long as they’re in charge), but it’s the antithesis of what America should stand for. A religious exemption is not too much to expect of a government that respects religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
11 Comments for “An Offense to Liberty”
posted by Houndentenor on
28 states already require this.
This does not apply to the churches themselves but church-related groups that run hospitals.
And I guess I’ll be the one to put this in writing since I can’t be the only person thinking it: after decades of sex scandals and frankly criminal activity covering up child rape and allowing it to continue, for the Catholic Church to pretend to be a moral authority at this point is laughable.
But I’ll offer a bargain: we will exempt them from this heath care law if they turn over all documentation related to sex abuse cases and allow prosecution of all priests, bishops and cardinals who committed crimes against children or who broke the law by failing to report those crimes to the proper authorities. It seems fair to me.
posted by Doug on
A hospital is not a church. A hospital is a business. A business is not a church.
Suppose a church that believed in separation of the races owned a hospital. Would that hospital be allowed to not treat African Americans or Chinese?
posted by another steve on
Suppose a church that believed in separation of the races owned a hospital. Would that hospital be allowed to not treat African Americans or Chinese?
Wow, the slippery slope argument. If we don’t require Catholic hospitals to provide free abortion-inducing drugs, because we can and we like abortions, then next… sex with dogs!
posted by BobN on
It’s hardly a slippery slope argument. Catholic institutions used to turn away Jews. So did a lot, perhaps more, Protestant organizations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, we already know that Black Muslim, Nation of Islam, and other such organizations can refuse to treat or help white people while still receiving government assistance.
Since you and your Obama Party support and endorse racism, segregation, and denial of services to people based on skin color, your argument doesn’t make any sense — unless, of course, you’re applying the typical Obama/LGBT practice that discrimination is always wrong unless it benefits you.
posted by Doug on
NDT, such a screed, girl, you need to get back on your medication
posted by Tom Scharbach on
These institutions are Catholic, not secular, by their charters and in their running.
How sure are you of that, Stephen, in practice?
Our county hospital, St. Claire’s, is a Catholic hospital, but it operates in ways that seem to be almost identical to the secular hospital in the next county over, Hess Memorial. I’ve been treated at both over the years, and I can’t tell the difference, except for name differences and the fact that St. Claire’s has a cross (not a crucifix) on the front of the building and Hess Memorial does not.
Both are owned by corporations. As I understand it, the corporation owning St. Claire is distinct from the Catholic Diocese of Madison. Both accredit doctors of all faiths and no faith. Both hire nursing, medical and maintenance staff without regard to religious belief. Both serve patients without regard to religious faith. Both have ministers of all the available local faiths ministering to patients. Neither offers religious instruction. Both have chapels, but you probably couldn’t tell which chapel went with which hospital if I posted pictures. Both comply with Wisconsin’s Domestic Partner law, recognizing Michael’s and my medical authority and next-of-kin status with respect to each other. And so on.
I think that is a good thing. In rural areas of Wisconsin, where most counties have a single hospital and many none (being served by the hospital in an adjoining county), the hospitals that are religiously affiliated, almost all Catholic, seem to operate as secular institutions for all practical purposes. I think that’s important, but I understand that it complicates the situation for Catholic hospitals. The question is when and where to grant a religious exemption to Catholic hospitals that is not granted to secular hospitals.
I’ll grant you that this is a hard case, and I am glad to see the discussion between you and David. But be careful not to run ahead of the facts.
posted by BobN on
It’s only by ignoring the facts that one can reach the conclusion that this is hard case.
This issue is nothing more than what has been happening for decades. Most insurance policies already cover things that are anathema to individual Catholic practice. There has never been an institutional right to assert religious preferences, well, not since anti-discrimination law started nearly a century ago.
posted by Jorge on
There has never been an institutional right to assert religious preferences, well, not since anti-discrimination law started nearly a century ago.
Not so. The Supreme Court decision just a couple of weeks ago says religious employers are exempt from anti-discrimination law? Read it: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the law of the nation now. And it’s not new. Before that several Circuit courts enforced just this sort of exemption.
posted by BobN on
Hosanna-Tabor is about hiring teachers. It isn’t at all about institutions asserting “rights” that cover all employees.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s only by ignoring the facts that one can reach the conclusion that this is hard case.
The sense in which I was using the phrase was “hard cases make bad law“, an law school maxim that cases with high emotional appeal tend to distort legal results because the emotional tug leads judges and juries to try to find a way around an established legal precedent. An example is Winterbottom v. Wright, in which the maxim first appeared in legal literature. In this case, the tug goes both ways.
You can see the emotional tug in both David’s and Stephen’s posts. That’s what makes it “hard case”. In terms of legal precedent, it is relatively open and shut. The definition used is standard, and is being applied in a standard way.