The
United States government recently passed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a federal health care
law which aims to reform the country’s current healthcare system to provide
more Americans with affordable health insurance coverage. It uses mandates,
subsidies, and taxes to encourage and enforce this goal. One such mandate
includes the Birth Control Mandate. Under this mandate, health insurance plans
provided by employers must make birth control available to women. This mandate
essentially narrows our religious liberties under the first amendment to the
right to free worship but not freedom of religion which is the liberty granted
to us by the first amendment of the Constitution. It allows us to go to our
house of worship and praise God but prohibits us from then practicing our
beliefs in daily life. As Catholics we hold
contraception to be immoral. Therefore, this mandate means we will now be
required to pay for and provide medical benefits which directly oppose the
moral and religious beliefs of our organization. This mandate clearly violates our organization’s
religious liberties, so as a member of the Catholic Church and of society, we
have an ethical responsibility to respond to such a violation of justice in
support of religious liberty. As a member of the Catholic Church, we cannot in
good conscience violate Church Doctrine despite this law, so we must stand up
for our first amendment rights.
The
Birth Control Mandate demonstrates a clear violation of Constitutional rights. In requiring our organization and many like us to provide
our employees with “preventative care” contrary to our religious beliefs, the
United States government violates the first constitutional amendment which forbids
making a law “prohibiting the free exercise [of an establishment of religion]”[1] The
University of Notre Dame also finds great fault with this mandate and has filed
a complaint seeking a compromise which will not force them to violate their
religious beliefs. In this complaint they state
as a self-insured
organization, Obama’s accommodation which states that religious organizations
will not have to offer birth control because the insurance company, will pay
for it doesn’t apply to them.[2] As
a self-insured non-profit organization owned and operated by the Catholic
Church, we too will receive no exception to this mandate.
Despite the free
exercise clause of the first amendment which disallows government interference
with the religious views of religious organizations, the U.S. Constitution and
federal statues protect the Birth Control Mandate. Are not the protection of
religious organizations from governmental interference with their religious
views and the forcing of such organizations to violate these religious views through
the Birth Control Mandate contradictory? The Supremacy Clause of article six of
the United States Constitution states that it shall be the “Supreme law of the
land.”[3] It
seems that this article renders the Birth Control Mandate illegal as it
contradicts the Constitution, which takes precedence over all other laws. Furthermore,
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced in 1993 states, “Government
shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the
burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[4] The Birth Control Mandate does just this. The Catholic
Church has expressed clear opposition to the use of birth control drugs, yet
despite the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, finds
its freedom to express this belief denied in a country founded on the bases of
religious freedom.
While
The University of Notre Dame and similar religious organizations cite the First
Amendment to the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to
support their allegations that the Birth Control Mandate is illegal, supporters
of the mandate also point to these items to demonstrate the legality of the
mandate. They point out that an exception to the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act exists if the burden placed on a religious entity is essential in advancing
a strong government interest. In opposition,
however, the University of Notre Dame explains in its suit that the government
has failed to provide any such government interest. On the other hand, though clearly a biased source as she works under
President Barack Obama and has political allegiances to his party, Health and
Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius states the government interest
compelled by the Birth Control Mandate to be: “Improved access to preventive
health services prevents illnesses and saves money.”[5] This
government interest, it can be argued, meets the exception to the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. The University of Notre Dame and other Catholic
organizations disagree, stating that pregnancy is not an “illness” that needs
“preventing,” so this is not in fact a legitimate government purpose.[6]
Furthermore, while
many opponents of the mandate cite the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, supporters point to the Free Exercise Clause of this amendment,
stating that this mandate does not violate the free exercise clause as it does
not prohibit people from practicing their religion, rather it prohibits them
from imposing their religious beliefs on those who may disagree. For example, Marci
A. Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at
the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and an expert on religious freedom and
self-proclaimed republican, states,
"This is not a request that involves someone saying that I
can't practice my religion, it's not a request that says that I can't believe
what I want to believe, this is a request that says I should not have to put
into a fungible pile of money that individuals who don't believe what I believe
will use in ways that I disapprove of.”[7]
It is difficult to find any bias in this statement as Hamilton is an expert on
the topic with no political loyalties to the Obama administration. However, the
Catholic Church, among others, disagrees with his expert opinion. If our
organization is forced to pay, out of our own pocket, for contraception and
other “preventative care” measures for our employees with which we find great
moral fault, we are being forced to personally violate our religious beliefs,
regardless of the beliefs of our employees. This is not a matter of imposing
our beliefs on our employees; rather, it is a matter of exercising our
religious beliefs freely. This bill allows Catholics to believe whatever they
please, but restricts their freedom to act on these beliefs: a clear violation
of constitutional rights. Opponents of the bill state that under the
Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, “the
Government may not interfere with a religious organization’s internal decision
if that interference would affect the faith and mission of the organization
itself.”[8] Legal arguments exist on both sides of the
issue, but the fact remains that the Constitution expressly prohibits any law
from infringing on anyone’s religious beliefs.
If we
refuse to comply with the requirements of this mandate, our organization will
face severe monetary penalties. However, if we do comply with this mandate, we
violate our sincerely held beliefs which our organization exists to uphold. The
Birth Control Mandate is contrary to the Church’s teaching and undermines all
that our organization stands for. Paragraph 2370 of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church states, “The
use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from
taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against
the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal
love.”[9] If
we act contrary to this belief or provide the means for others to act in such
manners as the Birth Control Mandate requires, not only will we will send mixed
signals as to the Catholic Church’s stance on the issue, we will also be
committing what we believe to be a grave sin. This is not an issue on which the
Catholic Church can “turn a blind eye” or adapt their beliefs to fit the law. We
have only two choices: pay the fines or resist the legislation.[10]
Our
ethical obligation to uphold our beliefs and fight for our constitutional
liberties leads me to advise you to work towards finding a way to avoid
providing “preventative care” which we as a Catholic organization do not find
morally acceptable. Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis, Missouri recalls a statement from the Congressional
documents of the United States in his reaction to the Obama compromise to the
HHS mandate, "The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal
principle that man's relation with his God is above human legislation and his
rights of conscience inalienable. . . It is an inborn principle which nothing
can eradicate.”[11] We
must not succumb to the law rather work to ensure the justice of the laws
regulating our society.
[1]
U.S. Constitution - Amendment
1. - The U.S. Constitution Online. N.p., 1995. Web. 01 Oct. 2012. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html>.
[2]
Goodwin, Liz. "Notre Dame
Sues Obama Administration over Birth Control Mandate." ABC News.
ABC News Network, 21 May 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/notre-dame-sues-obama-administration-birth-control-mandate/story?id=16395795>.
[3] (U.S. Constitution).
[4]
Full Text of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. Full Text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
University of Virginia, 16 Nov. 1993. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/RFRA1993.html>.
[5]
Kapur, Sahil. Obamas Birth
Control Mandate Takes Effect. TPM. TPM Media LLC, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 09
Oct. 2012.
<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/birth-control-mandate-takes-effect.php>.
[6]
The University of Notre Dame
vs. Kathleen Sabelius, Hilda Solis, Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Opac.nd.edu/assets/69013/hhs_complaint.pdf.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. 21 May 2012. Print.
[7]
Nazworth, Napp. "CP
Politics." Christian Post. N.p., 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.christianpost.com/news/birth-control-mandate-defies-partisan-split-at-heritage-foundation-symposium-82780/>.
[8] The University of Notre Dame vs. Kathleen Sabelius, Hilda
Solis, Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.
Department of Labor, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
[10] Wilson, Paul. How Will the Church Respond to the Mandate?
Catholic Exchange. N.p., 9 July 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012.
<http://catholicexchange.com/how-will-the-church-respond-to-the-mandate/>.
[11] Carlson, Robert J. "Statement from Archbishop Robert
J. Carlson on Obama Compromise to HHS Mandate." St. Louis Review.
St. Louis Review, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012.
<http://stlouisreview.com/article/2012-02-10/statement-archbishop>.
No comments:
Post a Comment