Obama Looks to Strip Entrepreneurs of Religious Liberty
Aug 10, 2012
Wesley J. Smith
Do entrepreneurs sacrifice their religious liberties merely by seeking a profit? That question would have stunned our Founding Fathers, most of whom were businessmen as well as statesmen. George Washington owned a large for-profit farm. So did James Madison. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton ran successful law practices. Benjamin Franklin was a printer and an inventor. Having secured freedom of religion for themselves and their posterity, these men of liberty would be astounded that the government they established asserted the legal authority to force business owners to violate their religious beliefs in the operation of their enterprises.
Yet, that is exactly the power claimed by the Obama Administration under the “free birth control rule” promulgated under the Affordable Care Act. This audacious agenda is promoted in a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice in Newland v. Sebelius, in which a Catholic family (the Newland siblings) seek court protection against being forced by the government to provide free contraception and sterilization surgeries to their female employees.
The case primarily hinges on the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, which requires that the government prove it has a “compelling state interest” when legally forcing individuals to violate their faith tenets. Perhaps because their business is self-insured, the court issued a preliminary injunction pending trial, so at least for now, the Newlands are safe.
But that doesn’t settle the case. The court deferred a hugely important issue until trial as a matter “of first impression;” whether the Newlands lost their RFRA protections when they decided to adopt a corporate business platform (Hercules Industries). Specifically, the government’s “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss” argues:
Hercules Industries is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not practice religion . . .
It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees . . .
The Newlands should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on the corporation’s group health plan or its 265 employees.
Impose? They own Hercules. They are the company’s sole stockholders and serve as its corporate officers. They pay for their employees’ covered health expenses out of their own pockets. Surely, operating as a close corporation does not strip American citizens of their religious liberties in the business context.
Or maybe it does. Some would argue that abiding by secular rules is the price paid for taking advantage of secular laws that accord entrepreneurs the advantages of conducting business through a juridical entity.
But a closer look at the government’s brief shows that it isn’t the act of incorporating that supposedly strips business owners of religious liberties in the marketplace, but simply seeking profit. “By definition, a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion,’” the brief states boldly. Any burden on religion arises out of the “choice to enter into commercial activity.” In other words, business is a religion free zone. Once we enter the stream of commerce—even, it would seem, as a sole proprietor—we leave our religious liberties on the dock.
That’s only part of the Obama secularization agenda found in their legal brief. In another radical move, the DOJ argues that by standing up for their own religious liberties, the Newlands are actually forcing their workers to follow the precepts of the Catholic faith:
The owners of Hercules Industries have no right to control the choices of their company’s employees, many of whom may not share the Newland’s religious beliefs.
That’s topsy-turvy. Refuse-to-pay is not synonymous with prevent-from-obtaining. Medicaid doesn’t cover abortion, for example, but that doesn’t mean the government is “controlling” the reproductive choices (in the common lexicon) of Medicaid recipients. Otherwise, Medicaid rules would violate Roe v Wade. Similarly, the Newlands are not preventing their female workers from using birth control simply because they won’t pay for it.
Ironically, the Obama Administration is the party in the lawsuit attempting to impose its feminist ideology on others. Forcing businesses to provide free contraception is essential, the DOJ argues, because controlling reproduction places working women “on an equal playing field with men” by “removing barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration.” Not only that, but requiring employers to provide free contraception assures “equal access . . . to goods, privileges, and advantages” that otherwise are denied due to the “unique health care burdens and responsibilities” borne by women.
Construing potential pregnancy as a “burden” is as much a dogma of contemporary secularism as the purported moral wrongness of artificial birth control is Catholic. Indeed, if the ACA is ever amended to allow HHS to require that employers provide free abortion, the government would make identical arguments as in Newman. And don’t think the Obama Administration wouldn’t do just that were they given the legal authority. Should this next logical step ever be taken, it wouldn’t just be (primarily) Catholics oppressed by the profit = secularization meme.
To summarize, the government claims that:
1) Seeking profit is a wholly secularist pursuit;
2) Hence, once we go into business, we lose our religious freedoms in the context of those activities;
3) Meaning that all who engage in such secular undertakings must accede to the precepts of secular ideology;
4) Which the government establishes through the passage of laws and promulgation of regulations.
And that is how the Obama Administration is using the ACA to further its ideological goal of enervating freedom of religion into a hollow freedom of worship—in which people are allowed to believe and worship as they choose, but not practice their faiths in the public square contrary to worldly imperatives. Should the Administration ultimately prevail in the Newland case—and in imposing the free birth control rule on explicitly objecting religious institutions (as I have discussed here previously)—naked secularism will reign triumphant to the significant detriment of traditional American liberty.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
RESOURCES
Newland v. Sebelius, DOJ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
Newland v. Sebelius, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Wesley J. Smith, Freedom of Worship’s Assault on Freedom of Religion
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.10.2012 | 4:45am
Ian says:
One has to ask why the professedly Christian Obama does so much to persecute Christians? The administration's conduct brings to mind Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
8.10.2012 | 7:35am
Michael PS says:
Liberalism, going back to the French Revolution, has been deeply suspicious of corporations and associations, as witness the decree of August 18, 1792 “A State that is truly free ought not to suffer within its bosom any corporation, not even such as, being dedicated to public instruction, have merited well of the country” and the La Chapelier law of June 14, 1791, dissolving guilds and trades unions.
As F W Maitland observes, “even the revolutionary legislators spared what we call partnership, and that for a long time past French law has afforded comfortable quarters for various kinds of groups, provided (but notice this) that the group’s one and only object was the making of pecuniary gain. Recent writers have noticed it as a paradox that the State saw no harm in the selfish people who wanted dividends, while it had an intense dread of the comparatively unselfish people who would combine with some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic purpose in view.”
In practice, the only freedom liberalism allows to corporations is the freedom to exploit the labour of others for profit.
As F W Maitland observes, “even the revolutionary legislators spared what we call partnership, and that for a long time past French law has afforded comfortable quarters for various kinds of groups, provided (but notice this) that the group’s one and only object was the making of pecuniary gain. Recent writers have noticed it as a paradox that the State saw no harm in the selfish people who wanted dividends, while it had an intense dread of the comparatively unselfish people who would combine with some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic purpose in view.”
In practice, the only freedom liberalism allows to corporations is the freedom to exploit the labour of others for profit.
8.10.2012 | 9:38am
Karen says:
Pregnancy and childbearing are serious burdens to working women, especially when their employers don't provide paid leave. Do you support laws that require paid maternity leave? Paid sick leave for all employees and their children? Also, why does the employer's religious views trump his employees?
8.10.2012 | 10:13am
James Pawlak says:
Since SCOTUS has declared that corporations are "persons" as to exercising free speech in political matters, a right under the Constitution, why should they be excluded from the "free exercise of religion". AS "PERSONS", a right under that same document?
8.10.2012 | 11:51am
Meg says:
"George Washington owned a large for-profit farm."
Along with a large number of for-profit slaves. The founding fathers are not the best examples of paragons of liberty. Were they required to provide health care for their slaves, I wonder? Probably not. Unlike corporations today, slaves were property, not persons. On the other hand, I agree that corporations should not be left to provide the health care needs of the nation. This is the very conservative Romneycare/Heritage Foundation vision of universal coverage that, while better than nothing, is inadequate and limited. We need to provide something more stable, continuous, and flexible.
Along with a large number of for-profit slaves. The founding fathers are not the best examples of paragons of liberty. Were they required to provide health care for their slaves, I wonder? Probably not. Unlike corporations today, slaves were property, not persons. On the other hand, I agree that corporations should not be left to provide the health care needs of the nation. This is the very conservative Romneycare/Heritage Foundation vision of universal coverage that, while better than nothing, is inadequate and limited. We need to provide something more stable, continuous, and flexible.
8.10.2012 | 11:52am
Saundra says:
Then what the administration is really seeking to accomplish is to strip a woman of her child bearing role. I guess the eventual goal must be widespread sterilization and "baby factories" with state run orphanages to raise the offspring. There really is no other solution to the men/women workplace inequality problem. As long as "mothers" or "parents" exist, they will always be distracted and pulled from work to care for their children. The only way to really level the playing field is to eliminate "mothers" entirely.
8.10.2012 | 1:58pm
Mary says:
I wonder whether Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters may be relevant. If the state does not have the right to shut down the schools it does not approve of, this could be dangerous as a back door.
8.10.2012 | 2:38pm
William says:
Karen asks: "Why does the employer's religious views trump his employees?" The response seems obvious: The employer is paying. The employee can assert equal rights with the employer by paying.
8.10.2012 | 2:42pm
Pt8685 says:
@Karen
Yes, I support such leave, as most reasonable people do - especially those of us deeply concerned with the rapid decline of the traditional family. But that isn't really relevant here.
The question is about religious freedom. Can the state force an employer to pay for drugs and procedures that violate his/her most fundamental religious beliefs?
The employee's religious beliefs are not an issue, since the employee is still free to buy contraceptives practically anywhere, if that's what they desire. The question is whether the employer should be forced by law to pay for them.
Yes, I support such leave, as most reasonable people do - especially those of us deeply concerned with the rapid decline of the traditional family. But that isn't really relevant here.
The question is about religious freedom. Can the state force an employer to pay for drugs and procedures that violate his/her most fundamental religious beliefs?
The employee's religious beliefs are not an issue, since the employee is still free to buy contraceptives practically anywhere, if that's what they desire. The question is whether the employer should be forced by law to pay for them.
8.10.2012 | 3:27pm
Karen says:
@William, can an employer limit how his employees use the salaries in any other ways? Please remember that employers provide health insurance as part of the employees payment for services -- the insurance pays for the labor.
8.10.2012 | 4:01pm
George says:
How many times do we, as a society need to have the same conversation. It always goes like this.
Someone says something like Karen just said, "Also, why does the employer's religious views trump his employees?"
The answer, as Wesley pointed out above (and has been pointed out in dozens upon dozens of articles at this point) is "Refuse-to-pay is not synonymous with prevent-from-obtaining."
That's it. Right there. Refusing to pay for a practice is not the same as preventing the people from that practice. Thus, the religious views of the employer do not trump those of the employee as they are not preventing the employee from engaging in any type of practice.
Can we now please move on to a different part of the argument?
Someone says something like Karen just said, "Also, why does the employer's religious views trump his employees?"
The answer, as Wesley pointed out above (and has been pointed out in dozens upon dozens of articles at this point) is "Refuse-to-pay is not synonymous with prevent-from-obtaining."
That's it. Right there. Refusing to pay for a practice is not the same as preventing the people from that practice. Thus, the religious views of the employer do not trump those of the employee as they are not preventing the employee from engaging in any type of practice.
Can we now please move on to a different part of the argument?
8.10.2012 | 4:10pm
David Nickol says:
I do not see how it can be said that the Obama administrations seeks to "strip entrepreneurs of religious liberty." As I understand it, it's at best an open question whether a for-profit secular corporation has a right to free exercise of religion. Exactly what would it even mean? Once a business incorporates, it becomes an entity separate from its owners. Can a corporate entity practice religion? If we regard a corporation as a person, can it be a Catholic corporation unless it is baptized? Does the Catholic Church recognize baptism for legal persons?
You can't strip religious liberty from a corporation that never had it in the first place. I believe Wesley J. Smith has even conceded himself that for a large, publicly traded corporation, it would make little sense to try to determine the corporation's "religion" based on the wishes of millions of stockholders.
So far as I know (and I am perfectly willing to be corrected), no corporation has claimed to have a right to do something under the free exercise clause and prevailed in court. So the right of free exercise by a corporation may be a possibility, but it is not a reality, and if it is not a reality, it can't be stripped away.
You can't strip religious liberty from a corporation that never had it in the first place. I believe Wesley J. Smith has even conceded himself that for a large, publicly traded corporation, it would make little sense to try to determine the corporation's "religion" based on the wishes of millions of stockholders.
So far as I know (and I am perfectly willing to be corrected), no corporation has claimed to have a right to do something under the free exercise clause and prevailed in court. So the right of free exercise by a corporation may be a possibility, but it is not a reality, and if it is not a reality, it can't be stripped away.
8.10.2012 | 4:34pm
Diane says:
So you would accept a medical plan that does not allow blood transfusions?
Would you accept a medical plan based on faith healing, no MD?
health care based on Jewish, Islamic and all the other religions in the world?
Because if the Catholics are allowed this exception, then they too will have to abide by any other religious beliefs of business owners.
Would you accept a medical plan based on faith healing, no MD?
health care based on Jewish, Islamic and all the other religions in the world?
Because if the Catholics are allowed this exception, then they too will have to abide by any other religious beliefs of business owners.
8.10.2012 | 5:15pm
David Nickol says:
George says: "That's it. Right there. Refusing to pay for a practice is not the same as preventing the people from that practice. Thus, the religious views of the employer do not trump those of the employee as they are not preventing the employee from engaging in any type of practice."
The government's argument, however, is not that the religious rights of the employer interfere with the religious rights of employees. It is that the (alleged) religious rights of the employer interfere with the rights of employees to receive government-mandated benefits." Let's use something other than insurance benefits. State laws generally mandate overtime pay for work over 40 hours a week. Suppose we have an employer—a member of the Laborers-in-the-Vinyard Christian Church—who has a religious objection to overtime pay, and expects his employees to work 60 hours a week for 40 hours' pay. They employees have no *religious* objection to working long hours without pay. They just don't think it's fair. The question is, should an employer's alleged religious rights trump the reasonably expected rights of workers guaranteed by law? This is not an entirely far fetched example, since the Amish, who don't believe in insurance, tried to get exempted from paying into Social Security for non-Amish workers they employed. The Supreme Court ruled that, while the Amish are religiously exempt from participating in Social Security themselves, they are not religiously exempt from paying Social Security taxes for non-Amish employees. Employees should not have to check on the religion and the religious beliefs of employers about Social Security (and insurance) before accepting a job from them. When you believe in overtime pay, or Social Security, or contraception, and you pass laws for employees to benefit from them, how many exemptions do you want to give out to employers who can conceivably come up with limitless religious objections to any regulation?
The government's argument, however, is not that the religious rights of the employer interfere with the religious rights of employees. It is that the (alleged) religious rights of the employer interfere with the rights of employees to receive government-mandated benefits." Let's use something other than insurance benefits. State laws generally mandate overtime pay for work over 40 hours a week. Suppose we have an employer—a member of the Laborers-in-the-Vinyard Christian Church—who has a religious objection to overtime pay, and expects his employees to work 60 hours a week for 40 hours' pay. They employees have no *religious* objection to working long hours without pay. They just don't think it's fair. The question is, should an employer's alleged religious rights trump the reasonably expected rights of workers guaranteed by law? This is not an entirely far fetched example, since the Amish, who don't believe in insurance, tried to get exempted from paying into Social Security for non-Amish workers they employed. The Supreme Court ruled that, while the Amish are religiously exempt from participating in Social Security themselves, they are not religiously exempt from paying Social Security taxes for non-Amish employees. Employees should not have to check on the religion and the religious beliefs of employers about Social Security (and insurance) before accepting a job from them. When you believe in overtime pay, or Social Security, or contraception, and you pass laws for employees to benefit from them, how many exemptions do you want to give out to employers who can conceivably come up with limitless religious objections to any regulation?
8.10.2012 | 6:27pm
don roberto says:
Obama and the Democrats obviosly think promiscuity should be promoted.
8.10.2012 | 7:44pm
CANmann says:
So what part of their religious beliefs do they need to "leave at the door"? The one that says "All people are created with equal dignity? All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (isn't that in the DOI)? The one that says you must pay a fair livable wage? Unfortunately, our president doesn't recognize the how our faith is a LIVING faith. Our belief are who we are!!! So which of these beliefs do you jettison to appease 'the One'?
8.10.2012 | 8:42pm
Katie says:
controlling reproduction places working women “on an equal playing field with men” by “removing barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration.”
Indeed. And I control my reproduction by, you know, not having sex.
Bonus: It's 100% effective. I have not once found myself facing "barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration" - at least not due to an unplanned pregnancy.
Just sayin', is all...
Indeed. And I control my reproduction by, you know, not having sex.
Bonus: It's 100% effective. I have not once found myself facing "barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration" - at least not due to an unplanned pregnancy.
Just sayin', is all...
8.10.2012 | 10:23pm
pentamom says:
"Employees should not have to check on the religion and the religious beliefs of employers about Social Security (and insurance) before accepting a job from them. "
They don't have to. They can just ask about the type of insurance coverage when they ask about all the other benefits.
Like, you know, everybody had to if they were concerned about this up until eight months ago, when we were living in the theocratic dark ages of religious control over employees' external behavior.
The Amish parallel is a bad one because the Amish don't actually care what anyone else does other than themselves. They write off the rest of the culture. It would no more occur to them that they could be involved in any evil by paying for other people's social security but not using it themselves, than that they are involved in any evil by building tables for people who might put computers on them. This is not parallel to those who believe that paying for other people's birth control is morally equivalent to going down to the store and buying poisonous substances for them to ingest recreationally.
They don't have to. They can just ask about the type of insurance coverage when they ask about all the other benefits.
Like, you know, everybody had to if they were concerned about this up until eight months ago, when we were living in the theocratic dark ages of religious control over employees' external behavior.
The Amish parallel is a bad one because the Amish don't actually care what anyone else does other than themselves. They write off the rest of the culture. It would no more occur to them that they could be involved in any evil by paying for other people's social security but not using it themselves, than that they are involved in any evil by building tables for people who might put computers on them. This is not parallel to those who believe that paying for other people's birth control is morally equivalent to going down to the store and buying poisonous substances for them to ingest recreationally.
8.10.2012 | 10:29pm
pentamom says:
"@William, can an employer limit how his employees use the salaries in any other ways? Please remember that employers provide health insurance as part of the employees payment for services -- the insurance pays for the labor. "
Salaries are given in cash precisely so that they can be spent on anything. Benefits are given in non-cash precisely so that they can be spent on one thing, and not another. Merely by providing standard health insurance the employers are "limiting" things by ensuring that that portion of the compensation cannot be spent on frivolous cosmetic surgery, saving starving children in Malaysia, or trips to the casino.
The underlying problem here is not so much that "religious" employers are legally obligated to pay for these things. It's that anybody has to, and doubly so when it's been widely known all along that significant numbers of people would have religious objections to doing so.
Salaries are given in cash precisely so that they can be spent on anything. Benefits are given in non-cash precisely so that they can be spent on one thing, and not another. Merely by providing standard health insurance the employers are "limiting" things by ensuring that that portion of the compensation cannot be spent on frivolous cosmetic surgery, saving starving children in Malaysia, or trips to the casino.
The underlying problem here is not so much that "religious" employers are legally obligated to pay for these things. It's that anybody has to, and doubly so when it's been widely known all along that significant numbers of people would have religious objections to doing so.
8.10.2012 | 10:34pm
FW Ken says:
The unspoken aspect of this is that the contraception methods being handed out for free include abortion-inducing drugs. I am being required to pay for the murder of human persons. State-paid abortions have been a goal of the abortion lobby as long as I can remember (which is several decades). The HHS regulations are a step - a huge step - toward that goal.
If the left wasn't besotted with death, they would see that a government that can force the issue over contraception (down-playing the bit about abortion), which is an issue for almost no group except Catholics, the government can force any issue with any group.
If the left wasn't besotted with death, they would see that a government that can force the issue over contraception (down-playing the bit about abortion), which is an issue for almost no group except Catholics, the government can force any issue with any group.
8.10.2012 | 10:45pm
wesley j. smith says:
David Nickol: The Amish case was in the 1980s before the RFRA was enacted. Thus, it is not very relevant since this case will most likely be decided on the statute, not the constitution.
Moreover, the Amish case involves a legally collectable tax by the government. The Newland case involves an administrative rule about what employers should cover in health insurance. And the government has a far more compelling interest in collecting the tax on behalf of all employees, than in enforcing a rule about an employment benefit, particularly since unlike SS, the rule is not universal, the exemptions for which here were a large part of the judge's thinking in issuing the injunction. All in all, very different situations and clearly distinguishable on many levels.
Besides, point is that the DOJ brief says that if you are in business, you essentially have no religious liberties in the conduct of your business but must comply with wholly secular values as established by the government. If that becomes law, it is a severe blow to freedom of religion.
Moreover, the Amish case involves a legally collectable tax by the government. The Newland case involves an administrative rule about what employers should cover in health insurance. And the government has a far more compelling interest in collecting the tax on behalf of all employees, than in enforcing a rule about an employment benefit, particularly since unlike SS, the rule is not universal, the exemptions for which here were a large part of the judge's thinking in issuing the injunction. All in all, very different situations and clearly distinguishable on many levels.
Besides, point is that the DOJ brief says that if you are in business, you essentially have no religious liberties in the conduct of your business but must comply with wholly secular values as established by the government. If that becomes law, it is a severe blow to freedom of religion.
8.11.2012 | 1:04am
Ben Embry says:
David nickol, I was impressed with your last two sentences ("employees should not have to check..."). Firstly, employees should have to check the details of their remuneration. Those are the terms of their contract, so it marks an especially grievous instance of irresponsibility for a worker to expect someone else to determine what his time and skills are worth. What are they worth? There is no uniform answer to that: the labor market exists to determine this very question, and ambivalence on the part of the employee might result in a bad deal for him.
Secondly, you write as if "accepting a job" is something the employee deigns to do, and that the employer is somehow obligated to dig out something called "job" to donate to the reluctant masses. The fact is, the work contract, not unlike other agreements, is consensual, mutually. The employer has his own reasons for seeking labor; the employee has his own reasons for seeking employment. Each side works from his own priorities. The result is a contract between two parties; it isnt that one side "accepts" a "job" and that the other side accepts a ward. the two parties come to agreeable terms, which might actually require that the employee investigate the religious predilections of the employer. Or not.
Thirdly, the employer should be free to make a contract according to whatever the market can bear. If he wants to pay his help with glass beads and tequila, what is that to thee? Such a liberated Employer might soon go bust, but You write as if "exemptions" to an established package of remuneration is onerous not only to the employer and the employee, but that it somehow drags society itself into a quagmire of inefficiencies. Poor, poor Society. Tsk, tsk. The state ought not mandate that job-givers must give pay of any particular non-monetary quality. Or if so, why not mandate that all labor shall receive from their employers guest passes to brothels and cock fights? I think this would really gain support in some quarters. But Heres why not to do it: Because some people (but obviously not all people) think that promiscuity and violence to animals are morally wrong and that even corporate persons should be free to operate with a rational sense of justice. Or maybe you are saying just that: that if the might of society at large sees cock fights and prostitution to be desirable, then no matter one's sense of right and wrong, there should be no exemptions from such a mandate.
Secondly, you write as if "accepting a job" is something the employee deigns to do, and that the employer is somehow obligated to dig out something called "job" to donate to the reluctant masses. The fact is, the work contract, not unlike other agreements, is consensual, mutually. The employer has his own reasons for seeking labor; the employee has his own reasons for seeking employment. Each side works from his own priorities. The result is a contract between two parties; it isnt that one side "accepts" a "job" and that the other side accepts a ward. the two parties come to agreeable terms, which might actually require that the employee investigate the religious predilections of the employer. Or not.
Thirdly, the employer should be free to make a contract according to whatever the market can bear. If he wants to pay his help with glass beads and tequila, what is that to thee? Such a liberated Employer might soon go bust, but You write as if "exemptions" to an established package of remuneration is onerous not only to the employer and the employee, but that it somehow drags society itself into a quagmire of inefficiencies. Poor, poor Society. Tsk, tsk. The state ought not mandate that job-givers must give pay of any particular non-monetary quality. Or if so, why not mandate that all labor shall receive from their employers guest passes to brothels and cock fights? I think this would really gain support in some quarters. But Heres why not to do it: Because some people (but obviously not all people) think that promiscuity and violence to animals are morally wrong and that even corporate persons should be free to operate with a rational sense of justice. Or maybe you are saying just that: that if the might of society at large sees cock fights and prostitution to be desirable, then no matter one's sense of right and wrong, there should be no exemptions from such a mandate.
8.11.2012 | 2:03am
Mal says:
Do not expect the once-respectable Amnest International to accuse Obama for violating citizens' fundamental right to freedom of religion. They have gone down to the same level as he has.
8.11.2012 | 7:07am
Michael PS says:
As Rousseau says, ““Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu'on le forcera d'être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu'on le forcera d'être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
8.11.2012 | 10:22am
Rachel says:
It is in preserving the interests of insurance companies, and the status quo that Obama's health care is so flawed. Had he gone the route of other countries that provide health care services to their populations, directly, and at a lower cost, Obama would not be in the mess he is in. American Health Care has too many cooks in the kitchen: insurance companies, employers, and governments. With the insurance companies in the driver's seat, assured profits from the public purse, one can bet that profit instead of public interest will be the driver of health care delivery. In this case, rogue capitalism is just as much a culprit as secularism. It is sad that in choosing to fight religious tenets, Obama has isolated those who would have most supported public health care from a social justice perspective.
8.11.2012 | 1:02pm
michael Currie says:
The insurance that I provide my employees ( in total) has any number of restrictions and limits on what it will pay for. It has deductibles, restrictions on formulary drugs, it restricts the amount of pills per month, regardless of what the Dr. has prescribed, it has co-pays, it has lists of what drugs it will not pay for and many other rules and restrictions that are part of our plan. I knew this when we bought the plan. The same will be true of any government plan that you can think of. All of these things are based on cost, which is reasonable, none are based on religious considerations, which makes sense also. As things stand now if I am not happy with what a plan offers I can search out a plan that meets my criteria, such as I will not pay for contraceptive, sterilization, abortificates or any number of services that offend my conscience.
With the fiat from HHS my understanding is that all of the above stands except one, the contraceptive etc. dicta. Although when the ACA kicks in the others will exist but not as a choice but as a dicta. At that point I will drop our insurance for our employees, pay the fine, or not, and wonder what other offensive orders will be coming next and they will come.
Nickols, you ask how many more exemptions will employers ask for based on limitless religious objections. I would ask how many more laws or regulations are you willing to countenance that impinge on religion given the limitless ability for the state to produce them, use your imagination. My understanding has been that the state must have a compelling interest and can find no less onerous ways to enforce their interests. Given the enormous coercive power of the state, its expansive nature, the ever growing number who look to it for goods and services it would seem that the opportunity for abuse is logically most acute with the state, this has always been the case. Proponents of religious freedom have to fight doubly hard to prevent the state from filling all of the space that lies between the individual and the state by co-opting our mediating structures. I recognize that this religious thing is messy and capable of being overdone but the constitution and the bill of rights were mostly about restricting what was known to be the most egregous violator of human rights, the state.
With the fiat from HHS my understanding is that all of the above stands except one, the contraceptive etc. dicta. Although when the ACA kicks in the others will exist but not as a choice but as a dicta. At that point I will drop our insurance for our employees, pay the fine, or not, and wonder what other offensive orders will be coming next and they will come.
Nickols, you ask how many more exemptions will employers ask for based on limitless religious objections. I would ask how many more laws or regulations are you willing to countenance that impinge on religion given the limitless ability for the state to produce them, use your imagination. My understanding has been that the state must have a compelling interest and can find no less onerous ways to enforce their interests. Given the enormous coercive power of the state, its expansive nature, the ever growing number who look to it for goods and services it would seem that the opportunity for abuse is logically most acute with the state, this has always been the case. Proponents of religious freedom have to fight doubly hard to prevent the state from filling all of the space that lies between the individual and the state by co-opting our mediating structures. I recognize that this religious thing is messy and capable of being overdone but the constitution and the bill of rights were mostly about restricting what was known to be the most egregous violator of human rights, the state.
8.11.2012 | 2:16pm
David Nickol says:
Ben Embry,
As I read your comment, the heart of it seems to be, "The employer should be free to make a contract according to whatever the market can bear."
That may be what you would like to see, but it is not anything near what we have in the United States on the federal or the state level. You may oppose child-labor laws, the Americans for Disabilities Act, the EEOC, protections for religious liberties of *employees* (not just employers), laws guaranteeing employees overtime pay or lunch breaks, and so on. But the idea of approving "whatever the market will bear" is not an American idea. And the Catholic tradition, the one I am most familiar with, condemns such an approach without reservation.
As I read your comment, the heart of it seems to be, "The employer should be free to make a contract according to whatever the market can bear."
That may be what you would like to see, but it is not anything near what we have in the United States on the federal or the state level. You may oppose child-labor laws, the Americans for Disabilities Act, the EEOC, protections for religious liberties of *employees* (not just employers), laws guaranteeing employees overtime pay or lunch breaks, and so on. But the idea of approving "whatever the market will bear" is not an American idea. And the Catholic tradition, the one I am most familiar with, condemns such an approach without reservation.
8.11.2012 | 3:17pm
David Nickol says:
wesley j. smith,
I was not attempting to write a legal brief, but largely to note that it is not the government's position that employers obtaining religious exemptions are "imposing their beliefs on employees." One does hear people arguing in favor of the contraceptive mandate claiming that exemptions for Catholic business owners would be imposing the Catholic religion on employees. However, that is not the government's argument. Assuming the contraceptive mandate goes through, the government's contention is that if Catholic employers were allowed exemptions, they would be superimposing the religious limitations they believe on as Catholics *not* on their employees, but on the HHS regulations. This is an indisputable fact. The question then remains as Catholic employers have a defensible First Amendment right to receive an exemption.
I am not a lawyer, but from what I have read, it has never been established that a for-profit corporation is covered by the free-exercise clause. I note the following:
**********
Hercules recently made two amendments to its articles of incorporation, which reflect the role of religion in its corporate governance: (1) it added a provision specifying that its primary purposes are to be achieved by “following appropriate religious, ethical or moral standards, and”
“(2) it added a provision allowing members of its board of directors to prioritize those “religious, ethical or moral standards” at the expense of profitability.
**********
http://marianews.com/wordpress/8189/courage-of-hercules-hhs-mandate-enjoined-by-federal-court-catholic-family-run-hvac-business-prevails/
It seems to me that Hercules is attempting to run a for-profit corporation, with the protections and benefits that affords to the owners, and obtain some of the privileges of a not-for profit organization.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that First Amendment free-speech rights for commercial corporations is a very new concept. First Amendment free-exercise-of-religion rights for a corporation seem to be a new issue that has never been decided. The judge granting the injunction for Hercules did not rule on this matter, but merely said the following:
**********
These arguments pose difficult questions of first impression. Can a corporation exercise religion? Should a closely-held subchapter-s corporation owned and operated by a small group of individuals professing adherence to uniform religious beliefs be treated differently than a publicly held corporation owned and operated by a group of stakeholders with diverse religious beliefs? Is it possible to “pierce the veil” and disregard the corporate form in this context? What is the significance of the pass-through taxation applicable to subchapter-s corporations as it pertains to this analysis? These questions merit more deliberate investigation.
**********
So once again, I take your title "Obama Looks to Strip Entrepreneurs of Religious Liberty" to be inapt, since you are assuming your own answer to the questions raised by the judge. You are assuming it is indeed possible to "pierce the veil and disregard the corporate form." And only by making that assumption can you say Obama is seeking to "strip" something from entrepreneurs.
The possibility of for-profit commercial corporations having the right to free exercise of religion raises questions about what other governmental regulations commercial corporations might request exemptions from. Can Hercules, for example, consider some (or all) positions in the company "ministerial" and exempt themselves from anti-discrination laws? It could certainly be argued that if a for-profit heating and air-conditioning manufacturing corporation can call itself Catholic and operate by Catholic principles, many positions in the corporation could be reserved for Catholics, and hiring and firing for those positions would be exempt from EEOC regulations and anti-discrimination laws. It seems to me that those who might wish, in this particular case, for a corporation to be granted the right to free exercise of religion could be setting a precedent that will eventually come back to bite them. The ability of a Catholic corporation to refuse to hire a non-Catholic for a "ministerial" corporate position is free exercise for Catholics, but it is religious discrimination (without any remedy) for non-Catholics who are turned down.
I was not attempting to write a legal brief, but largely to note that it is not the government's position that employers obtaining religious exemptions are "imposing their beliefs on employees." One does hear people arguing in favor of the contraceptive mandate claiming that exemptions for Catholic business owners would be imposing the Catholic religion on employees. However, that is not the government's argument. Assuming the contraceptive mandate goes through, the government's contention is that if Catholic employers were allowed exemptions, they would be superimposing the religious limitations they believe on as Catholics *not* on their employees, but on the HHS regulations. This is an indisputable fact. The question then remains as Catholic employers have a defensible First Amendment right to receive an exemption.
I am not a lawyer, but from what I have read, it has never been established that a for-profit corporation is covered by the free-exercise clause. I note the following:
**********
Hercules recently made two amendments to its articles of incorporation, which reflect the role of religion in its corporate governance: (1) it added a provision specifying that its primary purposes are to be achieved by “following appropriate religious, ethical or moral standards, and”
“(2) it added a provision allowing members of its board of directors to prioritize those “religious, ethical or moral standards” at the expense of profitability.
**********
http://marianews.com/wordpress/8189/courage-of-hercules-hhs-mandate-enjoined-by-federal-court-catholic-family-run-hvac-business-prevails/
It seems to me that Hercules is attempting to run a for-profit corporation, with the protections and benefits that affords to the owners, and obtain some of the privileges of a not-for profit organization.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that First Amendment free-speech rights for commercial corporations is a very new concept. First Amendment free-exercise-of-religion rights for a corporation seem to be a new issue that has never been decided. The judge granting the injunction for Hercules did not rule on this matter, but merely said the following:
**********
These arguments pose difficult questions of first impression. Can a corporation exercise religion? Should a closely-held subchapter-s corporation owned and operated by a small group of individuals professing adherence to uniform religious beliefs be treated differently than a publicly held corporation owned and operated by a group of stakeholders with diverse religious beliefs? Is it possible to “pierce the veil” and disregard the corporate form in this context? What is the significance of the pass-through taxation applicable to subchapter-s corporations as it pertains to this analysis? These questions merit more deliberate investigation.
**********
So once again, I take your title "Obama Looks to Strip Entrepreneurs of Religious Liberty" to be inapt, since you are assuming your own answer to the questions raised by the judge. You are assuming it is indeed possible to "pierce the veil and disregard the corporate form." And only by making that assumption can you say Obama is seeking to "strip" something from entrepreneurs.
The possibility of for-profit commercial corporations having the right to free exercise of religion raises questions about what other governmental regulations commercial corporations might request exemptions from. Can Hercules, for example, consider some (or all) positions in the company "ministerial" and exempt themselves from anti-discrination laws? It could certainly be argued that if a for-profit heating and air-conditioning manufacturing corporation can call itself Catholic and operate by Catholic principles, many positions in the corporation could be reserved for Catholics, and hiring and firing for those positions would be exempt from EEOC regulations and anti-discrimination laws. It seems to me that those who might wish, in this particular case, for a corporation to be granted the right to free exercise of religion could be setting a precedent that will eventually come back to bite them. The ability of a Catholic corporation to refuse to hire a non-Catholic for a "ministerial" corporate position is free exercise for Catholics, but it is religious discrimination (without any remedy) for non-Catholics who are turned down.
8.11.2012 | 6:38pm
Ben Embry says:
@ David Nickol, the heart of my comment was not the endorsement of "whatever the market can bear". I did use that phrase, and I can understand how it might be taken by people who have easy recourse against the idea as my comment's heart.
What my comment meant to emphasize was that your conception of a labor contract, as it came out in your comment, doesn't provide either employer or employee sufficient dignity. The employer is not a nanny, even if he does abide by some third-party contractual terms set by the state. The employee is not a helpless ninny, unable to know why he seeks employment and what he would like to gain from his labors. You indicated that the employee ought to be sheltered from having to make sense of his own benefits of labor. I disagree with that, and that is the heart of the comment.
And honestly, I don't know about corporations and tax laws. So I spoke out of turn when referencing "corporate persons". But if I may think aloud, it does seem that a corporation is a function of human society, and laws relating to corporations should align themselves with the good of society in mind. The American experiment, in my way of thinking, tried to remain chaste in defining the good. The bill of rights underscores a philosophy of man as possessing a natural end, but it doesn't spell out what that end is. the rights are not licenses for action but guarantees against state encroachment (see comment from Michael PS/Rousseau) on the (intentionally) vaguely conceptualized natural end or natural happiness. The idea, as I see it, is that individuals within the social contract are urged to pursue a rational conception of happiness, and there are some non-negotiables that must be made available to all men in their pursuit, even as the political life of the state takes on different expressions over time. One component of rational happiness is the free exercise of religion. When this is not respected, the natural end of man impossible to achieve.
So, yes, there *are* limits to exemptions from state rule (there, I said it), but there are also limits to state rule itself. Religion is guaranteed free exercise in the face of state rule; all law must be subject to that restriction, and the legal arrangement of the market must reflect that guarantee. The question isn't whether corporations exercise religion; the question is how can corporate law be arranged to reflect the guarantee of the free exercise of religion for all citizens within the social contract.
Just a few thoughts of mine.
Anyway, on "what markets can bear", let's just say that that means "what markets regulated by just laws and the terms of the social contract can bear".
What my comment meant to emphasize was that your conception of a labor contract, as it came out in your comment, doesn't provide either employer or employee sufficient dignity. The employer is not a nanny, even if he does abide by some third-party contractual terms set by the state. The employee is not a helpless ninny, unable to know why he seeks employment and what he would like to gain from his labors. You indicated that the employee ought to be sheltered from having to make sense of his own benefits of labor. I disagree with that, and that is the heart of the comment.
And honestly, I don't know about corporations and tax laws. So I spoke out of turn when referencing "corporate persons". But if I may think aloud, it does seem that a corporation is a function of human society, and laws relating to corporations should align themselves with the good of society in mind. The American experiment, in my way of thinking, tried to remain chaste in defining the good. The bill of rights underscores a philosophy of man as possessing a natural end, but it doesn't spell out what that end is. the rights are not licenses for action but guarantees against state encroachment (see comment from Michael PS/Rousseau) on the (intentionally) vaguely conceptualized natural end or natural happiness. The idea, as I see it, is that individuals within the social contract are urged to pursue a rational conception of happiness, and there are some non-negotiables that must be made available to all men in their pursuit, even as the political life of the state takes on different expressions over time. One component of rational happiness is the free exercise of religion. When this is not respected, the natural end of man impossible to achieve.
So, yes, there *are* limits to exemptions from state rule (there, I said it), but there are also limits to state rule itself. Religion is guaranteed free exercise in the face of state rule; all law must be subject to that restriction, and the legal arrangement of the market must reflect that guarantee. The question isn't whether corporations exercise religion; the question is how can corporate law be arranged to reflect the guarantee of the free exercise of religion for all citizens within the social contract.
Just a few thoughts of mine.
Anyway, on "what markets can bear", let's just say that that means "what markets regulated by just laws and the terms of the social contract can bear".
8.11.2012 | 10:18pm
Doug Indeap says:
Apart from the "corporation" issues raised by this case, the claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a "big lie"--a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.
Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.
The second choice does not amount to "violating" the law and paying a "fine," as some suppose. As the law "does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance" (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such "mandate" to "violate." Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.
Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a "large employer" (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)
In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is "morally sound." While also considering this option "unfortunate" in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers' "moral connection" to that coverage would be "remote." https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821
Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.
Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.
The second choice does not amount to "violating" the law and paying a "fine," as some suppose. As the law "does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance" (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such "mandate" to "violate." Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.
Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a "large employer" (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)
In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is "morally sound." While also considering this option "unfortunate" in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers' "moral connection" to that coverage would be "remote." https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821
Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.
8.12.2012 | 12:50am
enness says:
'controlling reproduction places working women “on an equal playing field with men” by “removing barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration"'
...also known as "children."
'assures “equal access . . . to goods, privileges, and advantages” that otherwise are denied due to the “unique health care burdens and responsibilities” borne by women'
...also also known as "children."
I have no children (I have never been married). I didn't get where I am in my career or society because of a pill. That notion would be profoundly insulting coming from anywhere, but especially from the US DOJ.
I also generally research jobs before I take them. There are plenty of good reasons to do so: so I don't undervalue my work, or don't inadvertently go to work for a company where they think it's fine to run child labor sweatshops, etc. I don't see how religiosity and insurance benefits are any different. If I neglect to ask questions before committing -- and occasionally I have, out of trust -- and the job ends up being difficult or annoying, I try to suck it up, get it over with, and move on quickly. Y'all know that you don't have to work someplace where you disagree strongly with policy, right? A courageous friend of mine quit rather than do something unconscionable. I was impressed, and whenever I know certain people could use work I try to send opportunities their way, even with what limited stuff I get. Anyhow...as I see it, it comes down to priorities. If having a job at all is a bigger priority than anything else, you're probably going to have to compromise on something, whether it is the pay or the hours or wearing a silly uniform or whatever. If, however, something else is more important, then for heaven's sake why not seek other employment? Why "free" contraception should be any different, I fail to understand.
...also known as "children."
'assures “equal access . . . to goods, privileges, and advantages” that otherwise are denied due to the “unique health care burdens and responsibilities” borne by women'
...also also known as "children."
I have no children (I have never been married). I didn't get where I am in my career or society because of a pill. That notion would be profoundly insulting coming from anywhere, but especially from the US DOJ.
I also generally research jobs before I take them. There are plenty of good reasons to do so: so I don't undervalue my work, or don't inadvertently go to work for a company where they think it's fine to run child labor sweatshops, etc. I don't see how religiosity and insurance benefits are any different. If I neglect to ask questions before committing -- and occasionally I have, out of trust -- and the job ends up being difficult or annoying, I try to suck it up, get it over with, and move on quickly. Y'all know that you don't have to work someplace where you disagree strongly with policy, right? A courageous friend of mine quit rather than do something unconscionable. I was impressed, and whenever I know certain people could use work I try to send opportunities their way, even with what limited stuff I get. Anyhow...as I see it, it comes down to priorities. If having a job at all is a bigger priority than anything else, you're probably going to have to compromise on something, whether it is the pay or the hours or wearing a silly uniform or whatever. If, however, something else is more important, then for heaven's sake why not seek other employment? Why "free" contraception should be any different, I fail to understand.
8.12.2012 | 10:29am
Gail Finke says:
'Forcing businesses to provide free contraception is essential, the DOJ argues, because controlling reproduction places working women “on an equal playing field with men” by “removing barriers to economic advancement and political and social integration.” Not only that, but requiring employers to provide free contraception assures “equal access . . . to goods, privileges, and advantages” that otherwise are denied due to the “unique health care burdens and responsibilities” borne by women.'
The DOJ is seriously saying that all women need contraception to be able to compete with men? When women graduate high school, college, and graduate school at higher rates than men do? When women are graduating medical school and law school at higher rates than men? When our prisons are full of MEN? I cannot put into words how incredibly offensive it is to hear that, to compete with men, I don't just have the option, but it's NECESSARY for me, to sterilize myself. And not only that,
I don't even have to pay for it! My employer has to make sure I get it in my hot little hands, and my fellow employees have to pay for me to do so. If they don't I face insurmountable barriers to 'economic advancement and political and social integration' (even though women are half the population they are apparently not integrated with the other half). That is just sick.
The DOJ is seriously saying that all women need contraception to be able to compete with men? When women graduate high school, college, and graduate school at higher rates than men do? When women are graduating medical school and law school at higher rates than men? When our prisons are full of MEN? I cannot put into words how incredibly offensive it is to hear that, to compete with men, I don't just have the option, but it's NECESSARY for me, to sterilize myself. And not only that,
I don't even have to pay for it! My employer has to make sure I get it in my hot little hands, and my fellow employees have to pay for me to do so. If they don't I face insurmountable barriers to 'economic advancement and political and social integration' (even though women are half the population they are apparently not integrated with the other half). That is just sick.
8.12.2012 | 12:48pm
David Nickol says:
Gail Finke,
You say, "The DOJ is seriously saying that all women need contraception to be able to compete with men? When women graduate high school, college, and graduate school at higher rates than men do? When women are graduating medical school and law school at higher rates than men?"
Do you think the fact that women are succeeding in higher education and the professions in record numbers has nothing to do with contraception?
You say: "I cannot put into words how incredibly offensive it is to hear that, to compete with men, I don't just have the option, but it's NECESSARY for me, to sterilize myself. "
No one is saying that women should be forced to use contraception. If the final regulations operate as it appears they will, women will not be given automatic insurance coverage for contraception. If their employer provides insurance coverage, each person will be contacted by the insurance company and given the option of receiving coverage of contraception.
You say: "I don't even have to pay for it! My employer has to make sure I get it in my hot little hands, and my fellow employees have to pay for me to do so."
First, we are talking about employer-provided insurance. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the insurance I get from my employer to be "free." It is a benefit, but I work for it. Most people who receive insurance from their employers also pay part of the cost. Second, the cost of contraceptive coverage is not borne by the employer or by fellow employees. It is borne by the insurance company, if indeed there is a cost at all. It is ultimately less expensive to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception than coverage that excludes it.
You say, "The DOJ is seriously saying that all women need contraception to be able to compete with men? When women graduate high school, college, and graduate school at higher rates than men do? When women are graduating medical school and law school at higher rates than men?"
Do you think the fact that women are succeeding in higher education and the professions in record numbers has nothing to do with contraception?
You say: "I cannot put into words how incredibly offensive it is to hear that, to compete with men, I don't just have the option, but it's NECESSARY for me, to sterilize myself. "
No one is saying that women should be forced to use contraception. If the final regulations operate as it appears they will, women will not be given automatic insurance coverage for contraception. If their employer provides insurance coverage, each person will be contacted by the insurance company and given the option of receiving coverage of contraception.
You say: "I don't even have to pay for it! My employer has to make sure I get it in my hot little hands, and my fellow employees have to pay for me to do so."
First, we are talking about employer-provided insurance. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the insurance I get from my employer to be "free." It is a benefit, but I work for it. Most people who receive insurance from their employers also pay part of the cost. Second, the cost of contraceptive coverage is not borne by the employer or by fellow employees. It is borne by the insurance company, if indeed there is a cost at all. It is ultimately less expensive to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception than coverage that excludes it.
8.12.2012 | 6:49pm
Matthew says:
I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if someone already posted this. But the Mirror of Justice blog reports that there was a decision in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania about religious liberty.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/08/district-court-enjoins-philadelphia-from-enforcing-outdoor-food-distribution-ordinance-against-chris.html
Evidently, the city of Philly saw fit to outlaw the distribution of food in certain parks. A religious group had been distributing food to the homeless in a park. So it sued, claiming a violation of the PA Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and also the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Court granted an injunction, ruling on the PA RFRA grounds. Here is a wonderful quote:
What defendants fail to appreciate is that to plaintiffs, sharing food with the poor is as much a form of religious worship as is prayer, preaching, or reading the Bible . . . . But defendants' argument is not persuasive for an additional and more fundamental reason. Essentially, defendants have assumed the authority to ascribe [to] some of plaintiffs' religious activities more religious significance than others, irrespective of the significance that plaintiffs themselves ascribe to their own religious activities. Defendants compound this error by offering to grant Rev. Little a limited exception for the food and drink she uses during her Communion service, which they characterize as a “core component of a religious service,” but not for the food Rev. Little shares with the homeless after the service despite the fact that Rev. Little considers this food an ongoing representation of the Communion observed during the service . . . . It is no more appropriate for defendants to “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion” than it would be for me to do so.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/08/district-court-enjoins-philadelphia-from-enforcing-outdoor-food-distribution-ordinance-against-chris.html
Evidently, the city of Philly saw fit to outlaw the distribution of food in certain parks. A religious group had been distributing food to the homeless in a park. So it sued, claiming a violation of the PA Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and also the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Court granted an injunction, ruling on the PA RFRA grounds. Here is a wonderful quote:
What defendants fail to appreciate is that to plaintiffs, sharing food with the poor is as much a form of religious worship as is prayer, preaching, or reading the Bible . . . . But defendants' argument is not persuasive for an additional and more fundamental reason. Essentially, defendants have assumed the authority to ascribe [to] some of plaintiffs' religious activities more religious significance than others, irrespective of the significance that plaintiffs themselves ascribe to their own religious activities. Defendants compound this error by offering to grant Rev. Little a limited exception for the food and drink she uses during her Communion service, which they characterize as a “core component of a religious service,” but not for the food Rev. Little shares with the homeless after the service despite the fact that Rev. Little considers this food an ongoing representation of the Communion observed during the service . . . . It is no more appropriate for defendants to “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion” than it would be for me to do so.
8.13.2012 | 8:01pm
Don Roberto says:
What many fail to appreciate is that, to neo-pagans and worshippers of Hedon, sharing the pleasures of care-free sex with all citizens is as much a form of religious worship as is prayer, preaching, or reading the Bible . . . and the "mandate" is an unconstitutional institutionalization of religion.
8.17.2012 | 9:16am
gigant says:
Medical benefits are a part of an employee’s compensation, just like a
person’s paycheck is also part of their compensation. Let’s say you
spend $75 per paycheck at the bar, and your employer is a Mormon who is
against all alcohol consumption. Your Mormon boss finds out about you
spending that money at the bar, and then docks your paycheck $75 from
there on out to keep you from participating in that activity, and from
having money from their business (through you) going to an activity they
do not support. See a problem here? Me too. And i agree, 75 is a bit much to spend at the bar :)
person’s paycheck is also part of their compensation. Let’s say you
spend $75 per paycheck at the bar, and your employer is a Mormon who is
against all alcohol consumption. Your Mormon boss finds out about you
spending that money at the bar, and then docks your paycheck $75 from
there on out to keep you from participating in that activity, and from
having money from their business (through you) going to an activity they
do not support. See a problem here? Me too. And i agree, 75 is a bit much to spend at the bar :)
10.3.2012 | 11:05am
Bella says:
Truly astonishing comments here, except for a couple of intelligent ones that suggest that you look into the benefits before accepting a job.
From when I began working in the late 60's up until 2005, when I converted to Catholicism, I NEVER had a job that paid for free contraception or abortion pills, and it NEVER occurred to me that I was somehow being cheated of a "benefit." I paid for my own birth control. The sense of entitlement in some of these posts is breath-taking. Pregnancy is not a disease (sorry, Gigant), and neither is having sex. I have zero problem with people having recreational sex (that is, without the possibility of having children, whether via pills or NFP or whatever), but since when is it the government's business to mandate paying for it, or the employers to pay?
Just wish the government would come up with something really important, like paying for my (recreational) tickets to Fenway Park.
From when I began working in the late 60's up until 2005, when I converted to Catholicism, I NEVER had a job that paid for free contraception or abortion pills, and it NEVER occurred to me that I was somehow being cheated of a "benefit." I paid for my own birth control. The sense of entitlement in some of these posts is breath-taking. Pregnancy is not a disease (sorry, Gigant), and neither is having sex. I have zero problem with people having recreational sex (that is, without the possibility of having children, whether via pills or NFP or whatever), but since when is it the government's business to mandate paying for it, or the employers to pay?
Just wish the government would come up with something really important, like paying for my (recreational) tickets to Fenway Park.
Anciently, people had no clear consciousness of the natural-supernatural gap and thus Church (of religion, more generally) was confounded with State.
Now people have less consciousness of supernatural realm and thus State encroaches on Religion, almost inevitably.
An absolute separation between State and Religion is not possible since the natural is rooted in supernatural while the supernatural builds upon natural.
Thus marriage and family law, more generally, is a matter both for Religion and State.
I would advocate for separate family law for each religion, evolved through mutual consultation of the State and the religion concerned