I haven't posted about the HHS mandate recently, though believe you me it has been in the background or forefront of my mind. I am both a beneficiary and a victim of Obamacare: I stayed on my father's policy later than would have been allowed, but now I am about to embark on my own healthcare voyage. Because of the contraceptive mandate, my school has dropped student coverage, which was going to be my route. In the wake of the elections, I've had a hard time not being depressed by the anti-life state of the nation.
Now, however, cases are starting to hit courts and courts are starting to give answers. Here's an article about a Bible-publishing company who won their case... though I am sure it's not the end of the story for them. And it's definitely not for others (such as Hobby Lobby) who lost and are appealing. The rationale for decisions, based on the limited information from these two articles, seems to be that the courts want to exempt religious organizations but not religious employers (i.e. individuals) from providing contraception.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe distinction isn't between individuals and organizations, it is between churches and non-churches. The underlying idea, I think is that an organization which serves noncatholics as well as catholics, or which employs noncatholics as well as catholics, should not be able to impose catholic beliefs about contraception on those noncatholics it serves and employs. In a society where healthcare is so often through an employer, for a catholic hospital (to pick one example) to tell its employees that it will only provide them with health insurance that does not cover contraception imposes a significant penalty on those hospital employees who are not catholic and do not agree with the catholic churches teachings on contraception. And in a pluralistic society, that is not a legitimate action for the hospital to take. That reasoning I think is right.
ReplyDeleteAs a legal matter, it's not that the courts want to draw this particular line. The Obama administration chose to draw this particular line. The question before the courts is whether the first amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the Obama administration from drawing this particular line. When a court upholds the mandate, it isn't saying that this is the only line the administration could have drawn consistently with the aforementioned laws, it is just saying that this line is consistent with those laws, and other lines may be too.
I have not read the actual court decisions, but from the presentation of the article, the reasoning was not that the publishing company was a "church" but had an explicitly religious mission and values. Have you seen that the courts defined this company as a church? Nor did it seem to be about who the company employs as much as how they conduct their affairs. Again, in the court decision, did they reference the religious affiliation of employees? I haven't had time to look for this information yet.
DeleteBut see, the distinction isn't between churches and non-churches. I think the government thought that they could make it that way, but that stems from a radical misinterpretation of the idea of church. I think HHS, et al. thought that they would be okay because parishes are generally exempt from the mandate. But the church is not just a parish -- it's a living breathing organism composed of the people who, yes, attend mass or services at that building, but who also run their own businesses, work at non-profits, etc. The question running through the background then is all these people who make up the church -- who should be compelled to violate their conscience, i.e, "who is religious enough?"
DeleteHHS has given out a number of exemptions (191 million people are not be covered by the contraception mandate). Additionally, there are a variety of ways around it. Large organizations, like a hospital or diocese, can self-insure, and thus, they don't have to provide morally offensive services. So then the question becomes, if the gov't thinks it's okay for all of those ppl to not have employer provided contraceptives, then what's so special about the pockets of other individuals (i.e., the 90 people who work at a Bible publisher or the 80 people who work for a Catholic worker's comp firm)? There is no compelling gov't interest that employees receive contraceptive coverage from their employers.
The people who are facing the hardest legal argument are for-profit businesses who employ more than 50 people. For example, Tyndale (the Bible publisher Beth spoke of) -- a company that tithes 10% of its pre-tax income, and which donates 97% of its profits to a religious non-profit. (Incidentally, Tyndale doesn't oppose contraceptives -- just abortifacients). The gov't is there in court saying it knows what it means to exercise religion, and that a Bible company certainly can't be doing it. There are plenty of examples of more. Basically, HHS is pushing them up against the wall and telling these devout small business owners, hey, pay for stuff you find morally objectionable or shut your doors.
The whole thing is just fishy -- from the very get-go, the gov't has shown that they have no real interest in accommodating rights of conscience. More and more cases are getting preliminary injunctions (and the 8th Cir just overruled a trial court today to grant an injunction). This issue is definitely going to the Supreme Court.
Beth, to answer your questions. The DC Circuit did not define Tyndale as a church, nor did he focus on the religious affiliation of employees. (In most of these cases, there seems to be a general theme of, yeah, basically everyone who works for you will probably share your same values, but that fact is neither here nor there when it comes to looking at the religious practices of the business).