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

#6
#8
#9

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

#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

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I find it interesting that these two "legal scholars" miss the point of governmental intrusion into religion. If they can't recognize that simple fact, they are not scholars of the basis of all law in the United States. The constitution and the historical writing that describes it's intent are irrefutable in the absolute separation of religion from government. And this does not mean government is free of religious influence but rather the religion is free of intrusion by the United States government.

It appears that the Columbia law school is in need of better instructors that know and understand the Constitution. Of course our President, the Harvard instructor on Constitution Law, is the first president that has unabashedly violated this primary tenet. The only explanation is that they do not believe it. Which in his case is a violation of his oath of office.

J. Dunlap of GA 11:19PM February 14, 2012

You say: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.

You only say this because the government has already jammed down the throats of the employers who they can hire based on race, ethnicity, religion etc. I'm sorry but once you're hired the employer makes the rules, if you don't like it hit the road.

If as you say the employers must all play by the same rules, can we agree that welfare can be eliminated, because if you breed 'em you feed 'em.

June of DE 9:46PM February 12, 2012

My own religious conviction is that God punishes us with disease and rewards us with good health, and that it is a sin to ever try to intervene in his will medically.

I'm therefore stripping practically everything out of my employees' policies. If I can't, I won't be able to sleep nights, because I would have a guilty conscience imagining to what unnatural ends they might choose to apply their insurance, and of course I can't be stopped from stripping out those policies, because my Republican friends are backing me on this, since it is a matter of my own religious freedom.

Plus, I save a lot on the health premiums I pay to cover my work force, since their pay package basically only includes chiropractic care and homeopathy, which don't offend my religious scruples because I deem them entirely ineffective.

frank buns of AR 5:25AM February 10, 2012

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
Donald Trump Makes Kim Kardashian Look Good

At least Kim Kardashian doesn't take herself seriously.

The Vietnam War Still Haunts Us

History rhymes once again, thanks so much.

'Transcripters' Make Birthers Look Smart

Now the fringe right wants the president's university grades to prove he wasn't a good student.

Obama Must Do More to Protect the Intellectual Property Industry

The Obama administration needs to protect the industry's creativity and innovation.

Is Congress Getting Dumber?

That Congress is speaking at a lower grade level than it was seven years ago may be due to the unfortunate tendency to equate education with elitism.

Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Advertisement