“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”.
Simple, elegant and precise.
Yet after more than 220 years, the first words of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States continue to flummox America’s liberals.
A creche on public grounds during the holiday season is grounds for liberal ire and protest. A cross at Mt. Soledad, in San Diego, California has been the source of 23 years of determined litigation by the ACLU. And the Supreme Court had to intervene to protect a congressional-endorsed war memorial, marked by a cross, in the Mohave desert.
While none of these acts even remotely tests the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment, the American left is zealous, lest some religious symbolism, left unchallenged, spontaneously lead to the creation of a Church of the United States America.
If only the left could be as vigilant in protecting freely exercised religious rights, equally guaranteed in the Constitution.
The story begins benignly enough.
Within the miasma that is Obamacare is a provision that required all insurers to provide “preventive health services.” As with most provisions of Obamacare, defining what was “preventive” and who were the “insurers” was left up to unelected government functionaries to sort out.
This past August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) addressed the laws provision, publishing an interim rule defining “preventive” health services to include contraceptives, morning-after pills, and female sterilization. In the same ruling HHS affirmed that the “all insurers” provision of Obamacare would be require inclusion of religious organizations, whatever their beliefs.
Religious groups – primarily Catholics – objected, but received warm reassurance from the Administration that the final rule would be much more religion-friendly. That went out the door on January 20th when the original rule was made final with only the most minor and cosmetic changes.
The rule – which is a breathtaking affront to religious liberty for those faiths that oppose abortion and medical contraception – provides one, small “conscience” exemption, if the religious organization meets three tests: 1) It has religious inculcation as ts primary duty; 2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and, 3) It primarily serves people of the same faith.
In drawing the exception so narrowly, HHS has captured in its web of compulsion a huge network of affiliated organizations whose fundamental religious principles regarding life are forcibly compromised by the HHS edict.
Indeed, in its zeal, HHS has effectively created a conscience exemption that Jesus and his Disciples could not meet.
Consider the implications for Catholic organizations.
Journalist Jonathan Last stated, “In the Catholic world, for instance, a diocesan office often employs lots of people – lawyers, janitors, administrative staff – who are not necessarily Catholic. And the duties of such offices extend far beyond inculcation of faith – to include charity, community service, and education. Or take Catholic universities. There are more than 200 of them serving some 750,000 students. they clearly do not fit the exemption. Neither would any of the 6980 Catholic elementary or secondary schools. Nor the country’s 600 Catholic hospitals; nor its 1,400 Catholic long-term care centers. Ditto the network of Catholic social services organizations that spend billions of dollars a year to serve the needy and disadvantaged.”
The choice for these organizations? Comply within a year or start paying exhorbitant fines.
It is unconscionable.
The defense of the HHS edict is succinctly presented in an Op-Ed piece by three liberal Senators, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Heanne Shaheen.
The key passage and justification from that piece: “Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the oppoiste is true. Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can no do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form. But the millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine whether Catholic or none Catholic.” (emphasis added)
Did you catch that?
In their mania to mandate free contraception and abortion services, the trio of Senators, no doubt speaking for their supporters, are prescribing limits of religious freedom through a government interpretation, in clear contravention of the First Amendment.
Worse, their intellectual reasoning here is deeply flawed. Indeed, the Senators are describing a solution in search of a problem.
No one – no one – in America is “forced” to follow a religious doctrine.
If you are a woman – Catholic or otherwise – and you want to use birth control or seek abortion inducing drugs no one can stop you from getting them. If you want these services as part of your health plan and you work for an ecclesiatic organization, no one is preventing you from changing jobs.
What the Obama administration has done here is to conclude that religious organizations are standing in the way of contemporary preventative care for women as determined by Kathleen Sebelius and NARAL.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, it is the Administration that is using a thoroughly arbitrary policy rule as a political frontal assault on organized religion in the United States.
Catholics are already in an uproar of the HHS rule, but other faiths should not be so sanguine.
If the Administration – any Administration – believes it can legally force religious organizations to subsidize products and services that are fundamentally in conflict the most central tenet of a faith, it is only a matter of time before it tramples on what another faith finds objectionable – or upon those who enjoy constitutional protections having no faith at all.
Religious liberty is under brazen assault.
It’s time again t0 stand up and be counted. You don’t have to be pro-life or Catholic to understand the implicit meaning of this ruling if it is not challenged and defeated.