Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control?
Last month, President Obama announced his administration’s plan to require religious employers, like universities and hospitals, to cover contraceptives in employee health plans. Obama’s new mandate would not require employers at houses of worship to provide their employees with contraceptives, but his announcement sparked a firestorm in different religious communities, pitting freedom of religion against the separation of church and state.
Obama has since said that he and his advisers are looking for ways to make the new requirements “more palatable” to religious institutions.
Proponents of the requirement argue that 98 percent of women in the United States have used birth control in their lives and that free access to contraceptives reduces unwanted pregnancies and lowers abortion rates. Likewise, they point to the separation of church and state, a key American doctrine, and hold that religious views on contraception have no bearing in the workplace. No one is requiring the use of contraception, their argument goes, only requiring that it be available to those who want it.
Unsurprisingly, Speaker of the House John Boehner and many Republicans have vowed to fight the president’s new policy. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” Boehner said in a floor speech on Wednesday.
Opponents of Obama’s proposed requirement argue that requiring religious people to provide birth control violates religious freedom, another one of the country’s foundational tenets. They say that requiring people to violate their consciences is bad policy and that the president is getting involved in a culture war to stimulate his liberal cabal in an election year.
Should religious institutions be required to cover birth control? Here’s the Debate Club’s take:
The Arguments
No — The First Amendment exists to shield believers and their institutions from exactly this kind of brute force
HANNAH SMITH, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Comment (9)
No — The uproar over Obama's choice has to do with more than contraception
JEANNE MONAHAN, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council Comment (7)
Yes — Family planning is the most effective tool we have in reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion
JESSICA ARONS, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at Center for American Progress Comment (10)
No — The infiltration of the secular state into the faiths of millions of taxpayers is scary
ANDREA S. LAFFERTY, President of Traditional Values Coalition Comment (1)
No — Obama is dependent upon continued feminist support for his re-election
JANICE SHAW CROUSE, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute Comment (1)
No — The government's assault on religious faith and practice is broad and deep
PATRICK VAUGHN, General Counsel at American Family Association Comment (5)
Yes — Religiously owned or affiliated organizations ought to play by the same rules as other employers
KATHERINE FRANKE, ELIZABETH SEPPER, Scholars at Columbia Law School Comment (6)
Yes — Nothing about this new rule will affect a person's ability to practice his or her religion
NANCY KEENAN, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Comment (3)
Yes — No one is telling the Catholic Church that it cannot hold its views on contraception
ROGER N. LANCASTER, Director of Cultural Studies at George Mason University Comment (4)
Yes — Contraception is a key component of basic healthcare for women of all faiths
LOUISE MELLING, Deputy Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union Comment (1)
Yes — Birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary
JOAN HOFF, Research Professor of History at Montana State University Comment (5)
