Religion and Birth Control

The Obama Administration recently issued an Executive Order stating that church affiliated employers must cover birth control regardless of their religious princples.

For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect Aug. 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises, from profit-making companies to government, will have access to the new coverage starting Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases.

Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.

As expected, there was publich outrage from all sectors.

House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio - R) - "I think this mandate violates our Constitution. I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations. And I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look."

Rep. Joe Walsh (IL 8th District - R) - "This is a slap in the face of every U.S. employer and religious institution. The president seems to have forgotten that this country was founded on religious freedom. This decision goes against that and everything this country stands for."

Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement “a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience.”

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that “the Obama administration was essentially saying `to hell with you,’ particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience.”

Next, we have a quote from Kristen Day, the Executive Director for Democrats for Life of America (the pro-life Democrat congressional members and a key swing vote in approving Obama-care). "Forcing religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs is very clearly wrong."

I'm not even sure where to begin with all this. On reflection, I do know where to start: with the Constitution and ratified Amendments. In the Constitution, the only reference to religion is that no religious test shall be required for office. In the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, there is only one mention of religion and it is in the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

So, is a religious test being required for public office? No. Is Congress making a law about the establishment of religion or prohibiting anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. No.

Speaker Boehner, on this issue, is incorrect in saying that this goes against the Constitution. Rep. Walsh is incorrect in saying this decision goes against religious freedom. But again, they are from the opposition in the two party system our country enjoys.

Now we get into the rhetoric filled middle ground or, as I like to call it, the rhetor-ground. Obviously, Bishop Murphy and Zubik are toeing the religious line spouting all kinds of charged rhetoric. Besides being filled with line toers, this ground is also filled with people giving tidy sound bites that don't really say anything and, quite often, is done so in language that exudes arrogance. As if their position is, quite obviously (to them), the correct one, they use language like "radical incursion" or "very clearly" coupled with phrases like "dismissing our beliefs" or "freedom of conscience." For example, a rhetor-grounder might say, "this is a radical incursion on our freedom of conscience and, very clearly, he is dismissing our beliefs." The rhetor-ground uses charged language with no actual facts other than a decision was made that hurt someone's feelings..

So let's get to the facts. This country was founded on freedom of religion. You, me and everyone else here can practice any religion they want to and, for tax purposes, can even be a clergy member and start a church. Regardless of your opinion on Obama-care (I oppose it), it will be in effect soon, and this executive order is in line with previously passed and signed into law legislation. If you (the proverbial "you") are a church or direct religious insitution, you are exempt from this mandate. If you are a church-run soup kitchen or youth group, then you must provide health insurance that offers birth control to females.

In my opinion, this country was founded also on liberty, or a freedom of choice. That is to say, to have all options available and none, save the most extreme, denied to you.

Just beause there is freedom of religion and freedom to use as much or as little health care as an individual sees fit, does not mean that religion has the freedom to dictate how much or little health care it can provide to its employees. The religious organizations, in voicing their opposition, are showing little faith in their employees and members practicing their doctrines. Just because birth control is mandatory coverage does not neccessarily mean the employees will choose to use it. The conservatives and church groups always say "you gotta have faith." Well, show a little faith in your followers for once by letting them choose the the "right" path instead of giving them only one path. If you want to claim the protection of freedom of religion, then remember to also allow your people some liberty.