Crossed

A Local Pastor And A Local Atheist Debate Contraceptive Coverage - A Violation Of Religious Freedom?

April 8, 2016

Rev. Dr. William C. Myers

Senior Pastor at Presbyterian Church of Traverse City.

Female circumcision, valued in a handful of cultures, is considered unnecessary and immoral by many. Imagine a progressive business owner being required to provide insurance covering the cost of such a procedure. How would she respond? What if an LGBT employer was prohibited from financially assisting an employee seeking to undergo gender modification surgery? Or perhaps the employee is seeking body changing plastic surgery, not for gender modification, but to look like Barbie, and the government requires a feminist employer to share in the cost of this procedure. What would the employer do then?

These are questions I invite those who believe the Little Sisters of the Poor and others with concerns over insurance covering contraception to ask themselves. The question before the Supreme Court isn’t about the right of women to have access to contraceptive services. There are alternative measures available that are safe, effective, and inexpensive. The question isn’t about the legitimacy of those seeking relief of conscience. Their beliefs are sincere and longstanding. The issue isn’t even about the morality of contraception.

The heart of the issue is our freedom to live lives consistent with our religious beliefs, a freedom protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. Groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor are being required to provide access to contraceptive services. They are being asked to provide for services and procedures they find morally objectionable, or risk paying millions of dollars in fines for following their beliefs. While we might not agree with their beliefs, before we criticize or condemn, we must ask ourselves: What would we do if the government required us to act immorally?

GARY’S RESPONSE

Bill’s examples are good ones. But no one is forcing anyone to do or pay for anything. The Little Sisters have only to fill out a simple form that absolves them from any association to contraceptives, expenses, or approval thereof. There are plenty of regulations that many of us do not agree with, but they are established for the benefit of the majority.

However, it’s Bill’s final sentence that most attracts my attention. The government requires some segment of our society to act "immorally" on a daily basis. Morality is often personal. I find war or any act of aggression upon another country, which has not directly attacked our shores to be morally repugnant. You might feel that these actions safeguard our freedom. Regardless, I still must comply with the legal requirement to support our government’s outrageous spending on defense in the form of paying taxes. In this case, a substantial majority of our population wants their health care providers to cover contraceptives. An opt-out form is just part of compliance and far from "burdensome."

Gary Singer

Gary helps businesses with their Internet marketing. He was raised a Catholic.

The original Affordable Care Act required contraceptive coverage for all participating insurance companies. There was an exemption for houses of worship, but not for religious organizations such as universities, hospitals, and groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor. That is quite reasonable, given that house of worship staffing is limited and those workers are frequently proponents of the religion, while the organizations rely upon masses of unaffiliated employees.

The first amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There is nothing in the ACA that in any way can be construed as prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Regardless, the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations argue that they are being unfairly burdened by having to fill out a one-page exemption form, which eliminates their problem. They believe the mere fact that they have to opt out somehow makes them complicit in providing contraception. Huh? That's like saying they shouldn't have to fill out a tax return because the U.S. government uses tax dollars to fight wars.

There is a point where separation of church and state collides with the "general welfare." That obviously kicks in should some religious sect decide that human sacrifice is the best way to appease their god. As it is now, most religious "nonprofits" (ahem) pay no taxes and can freely discriminate against any gender or race they decide does not conform to their way of thinking. Surely the Little Sisters could be more positively directing their efforts toward their obvious mission of helping the poor, rather than involving themselves with eliminating a onepage governmental requirement.

BILL’S RESPONSE

Gary, if you accept as reasonable that houses of worship should be granted an exemption, then it’s reasonable that related organizations would qualify as well. The question isn’t the size of the employer or whether their employees share their faith. The question is one of identity and mission. Is it lawful for the federal government to establish the identity and mission of religious organizations by mandating they participate in activities they believe to be immoral? No. The issue isn’t the exemption form. The issue is being forced to collaborate with the federal government to provide a service these organizations find morally objectionable. Contraceptive coverage is not a general welfare issue. If an employee desires contraceptive coverage, the responsibility should be theirs to secure it.

Bill and Gary agree that those who feel oppressed by governmental regulation should do everything in their power to enact change.