Debate Club

Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control? >

Obama Rule Respects Religious Diversity and Employees' Dignity

Religiously owned or affiliated organizations ought to play by the same rules as other employers

February 9, 2012

About Katherine Franke:

Katherine Franke is Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law and director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.

About Elizabeth Sepper:

Elizabeth Sepper is Center for Reproductive Rights Fellow at Columbia Law School.

The better way to frame the question is: Should employers with a corporate relationship to organized religion be permitted to avoid constitutionally protected health measures that every other employer must follow? Of course not.

Setting aside the politically charged question of contraception for a moment, would this issue be so difficult if we were considering a demand by a Christian Scientist-owned construction company to be exempted from state-mandated health and safety regulations for its employees because it prefers to rely on prayer? Of course not.

[Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion.]

Religiously owned or affiliated organizations that employ people of all faiths and backgrounds ought to play by the same rules as every other employer, including being subject to health, safety, and labor regulations. They provide goods and services to the public and are the beneficiaries of ample taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. Their status as religiously owned or affiliated shouldn't allow them to pick and choose which public regulations they must comply with.

The Obama administration's new rule requiring employers—except for houses of worship and a narrow array of religious organizations—to cover contraception is smart health policy. What's more, it strikes a balance that respects both religious diversity and employees' dignity and liberty.

Opponents of contraceptive coverage—led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops--want to convince us that a religious exemption must exempt almost all religiously affiliated employers from the new healthcare law's contraception rules. In their view, religiously affiliated institutions should be permitted to have their religious principles override valid legal regulations to which they have an objection. Time and again, however, U.S. courts have found that religiously affiliated employers cannot run their businesses in ways that contravene larger social norms about fairness, health, safety and equality. For instance, they cannot pay their male employees more than their female employees because their faith instructs that men should be the breadwinners in the family, and they must respect the religious beliefs of their employees even if they conflict with those of the employer's religion.

[Obamacare Birth Control Mandate Tramples Religious Liberty.]

The Catholic Bishops' effort to overturn the Obama administration regulation on insurance coverage for contraception turns religious freedom on its head. Conscience no longer belongs to the individual employee—it becomes the sole province of administrators of large healthcare systems, provosts of universities, and the bishops themselves, and is used as a blanket to cover up the religious, and other, beliefs of employees who work for religiously affiliated employers.

What has been lost in this debate is that requiring employers to cover contraception protects the religious freedom of individual Americans. The new contraceptive rule permits each employee to live out his or her conception of a moral life. It allows no employer to dictate an employee's beliefs. (It's important to note that healthcare coverage for contraception is something that concerns both male and female employees.)

The new contraception coverage rule will improve employees' access to essential contraceptive care. It will respect women's and men's decisions about their reproductive health. It will also lift a substantial financial burden from women and their families. The average woman uses contraceptives for 30 years of her life at a cost of $30 to $50 per month.

[Rick Newman: Obama's Common-Sense Deficit.]

But it is not anti-religious or anti-Catholic. Religious freedom will not rise or fall on the back of insurance coverage for contraceptives. A majority of Americans of all faiths, including a majority of Catholics, supports extending coverage. Twenty-eight states already require contraceptive coverage. Many religious employers offer it as part of their insurance plans. And for the vast majority of Catholics who depend on contraceptives to avoid unintended pregnancy, the insurance mandate is anything but anti-Catholic.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
Obama administration,
religion,
birth control
Other Arguments
#1
#2

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

#3

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

#4
#5

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

#5
#8

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

#9
#10

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

#11

Yes — Birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary

JOAN HOFF, Research Professor of History at Montana State University

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Advertisement