The first sentence of the First Amendment to our Constitution drew this line: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”
The Obama Affordable Care Act/Health and Human Services crossed that line with its rule requiring employers’ health insurance plans to include contraception among free preventive health services.
The state has the right to restrict the activities of religions so that they do not have negative impacts on the rights of others. (“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s …”) Religions cannot do some things: practice polygamy, or (in the extreme) burn witches.
Rather than considering examples of the government preventing harmful negative behavior, perhaps the ACA/HHS ruling is better compared to examples of the government enforcing special-interest groups’ preferred new behaviors:
A special interest — say, pork producers — thinks there should be free pork served daily for school lunches, and thinks every school — public, private, religious, even Jewish — should be required to provide it for their students, even if it violates their religious beliefs.
They have many reasons they think it’s a really good idea, and want it to be law; and they want the government to enforce it on everyone.
A special interest — say, the National Organization for Women — thinks there should be free birth control (etc.) for all, and thinks everyone, even Catholic organizations, should be required to provide it for their employees, even if it violates their religious beliefs. Supporters have many reasons they think it’s a really good idea, and want it to be law; and they want the government to enforce it on everyone.
( … and unto God the things that are God’s.”)
As to things like religious freedom, the bishops and the Catholic Church profess the sanctity of life — from beginning of life (even in the womb) to natural end of life. No euthanasia, no executions, no killing, no abortions. Not even birth control. Agree or not, these are religious beliefs that are extolled and preached consistently, sincerely, deeply.
Some say the Catholic bishops seek the right to deny others medical treatments they don’t validate.
How many organizations have administered more health and medical treatments for the sick around the world, regardless of status, income level, gender, age or nationality, than the Catholic church?
Probably not very many. It is ministering both physically and spiritually, following Christ’s teaching to care for the sick.
Denying others? Others can still get birth control other ways. It is a free country. The pill is ubiquitous; the church and its leaders should not be forced to provide and pay for something they are strenuously, morally opposed to.
Medical treatments they don’t validate? The bishops can speak for themselves, but I feel sure they see this as something very different from medical treatments.
Some are convinced the Catholic bishops seek to win a conflict of authority with powerful people in a public arena more than they seek to promote moral behaviors. I understand this viewpoint, but I believe one side wholly sees this as a political issue, the other wholly as a moral issue.
I am convinced the Catholic bishops see this as a sanctity-of-life moral issue.
I see it as an American issue, a basic freedom issue (sideshow acts since notwithstanding).
I believe the ACA/HHS ruling went way over the line, and now, its misuse exposed early, that the act should be repealed.
