Religious freedom is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion with President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
The First Amendment was just defended by the president on Religious Freedom Day this year when he wrote, “Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.”
However, prosecution must be acceptable, since the White House has been arguing in court that religious employers and thousands of religious institutions, such as church operated schools and social services, must violate their religious conscience by offering “free” abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization when providing insurance for their workers.
Religious conscience is defined as the inner sense of what is right and wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward the right action. The Affordable Care Act tramples the very core of religious freedom by mandating that an individual must act against the teachings of their faith.
Excerpt:
Religious Freedom Day commemorates the anniversary of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the state assembly in 1786.
Jefferson wrote that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.”
Unburdened by Jefferson’s view, the ACA anti-conscience mandate has a narrow religious exemption that applies only to formal houses of worship. The mandate allows government to determine what defines a religion, who can exercise it, and where they can exercise it.
Countless other religious employers, such as universities, hospitals, charitable organizations, and other non-profits will be forced to provide coverage for the mandated services, despite their moral or religious objections – simply because they step outside the four walls of their church to serve others of different faiths.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, President of the U.S. Conference of Bishops wrote in a statement released by the bishops conference, “These ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”
“The government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage – they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children,” he said. That would directly affect both the Catholics and non-Catholics to fund procedures and medicines, which their faith does not allow.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, explained the significance of the Administration’s mandate and its impact on those institutions, remarking that, “For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice–schools, hospitals, and social service organizations–are not ‘religious enough.’”
Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins said, “If the government wants to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.”
The Administration has tried to obscure the real nature of religious objection by claiming that those with such objections want to deny contraception to women. But birth control will continue to be widely available and easily affordable.
The Illinois Appellate Court and other state courts have ruled that the state does not have the power to force pharmacists and pharmacies to stock and dispense abortion-inducing drugs in violation of their religious beliefs.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a Catholic couple who run a construction company and sought to avoid compliance with the ACA edict, which they knew was a violation of their faith. The federal court said in its ruling that the government had not justified its “substantial burden” on religious freedom.
The real and disquieting question is why would the American government try to mold everything, including religious belief, to its political will? Wouldn’t the ACA force religious organizations to essentially become instruments of the government, subservient to the state?
If our government, seeking to expand its control over American citizens, can override our religious freedom and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut their spiritual values, then the government could do the same for other Constitutional rights. There would be no limit to the government’s power.
The current administration thinks that their electoral and legislative victories vindicate their views. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of the current majority view, if America is to remain a nation of laws rather than of men.
Religious freedom compels us to ask, if America has reached a point, where being a Christian and speaking out for religious freedom is now considered unprotected speech or un-American because of beliefs based on the commandment, “Thou Shalt not Kill,” as opposed to the dictates of the current Washington administration?
Ted, no one and no law is forcing anyone to use contraception. Therefore no infringement of anyone’s 1st Amnedments is happening.
No Todd A., the government is forcing religious people to pay for it when it’s against their religion – that is an infringement.
No Ted, the government is forcing business owners to pay for it. The fact they happen to be religious is not the governments problem. They serve the public and are held to the same rules as everyone else.
@Adam Faber,
Clearly he is not, but thanks for trying to get a response! Your silence speaks volumes anyway Ted.
Business owners have religious freedom too, Joe. They are running their own business, usually at their own expense, and their religious freedom is at stake just like the individual. As a matter of fact most small businesses are run by individuals.
I will guarantee that Catholic business owners today do not know all of the items that are covered by their insurance plan’s drug formularies. AND therefore, they are most likely providing birth control generics to their employees with no co-pays – especially in those situation where their employees are getting their prescriptions via a mail service where most generics are a $0 co-pay.
If they want to play this game, then all they have to do is decide to not provide insurance and then pay the penalty for not providing insurance. There is nothing in their religion that prohibits paying a fine for not providing insurance, and their cost go down quite a bit, so that problem is solved.
But their new problem is that many of their employees, including the Catholic ones, will find jobs where their employer provides insurance. The Catholic employer will have to deal with the fact that he/she cannot attract enough qualified employees. Then they will go out of business and they are no longer having their religious freedom “trampled”.
AND Ted, business employees have religious freedom too.
Re: “If they want to play this game, then all they have to do is decide to not provide insurance and then pay the penalty for not providing insurance. ”
That is the intent of ObamaCare, to destroy the private insurance industry. Whether they do it by making it too costly for businesses to afford to provide, or using religious concerns, the result is the same: The Government will be in near-total control of healthcare, better-known as socialized medicine.
JRM, employees could simply buy their own contraceptives, religious or not. AND, if a religious businessman doesn’t check his insurance’s formulary, then so be it. Those that do check should be religiously free to omit that coverage from what they pay for. The cost of birth control is not prohibitive – cut back on something else.
Better yet, have the government set up its own little pharmacy to deal with this problem and charge people like the post office does, then none of our citizens would have to contribute to this expenditure in violation of their religious freedom!
Quakers and conscientious objectors didn’t have to participate in the world wars, did they? That’s called religious freedom. The government today wants to dictate behaviors and is taking away more and our more of our freedoms and our money in the name of fairness and leveling the playing field.
Ted,
How do you NOT see the difference? Your Quaker example is exactly ALL OF OUR POINTS.
A Quaker themselves did not have to fight in wars. They DID have to pay taxes to fund those wars though. Their personal religious freedom is not violated by paying taxes to fund the war is it now Ted?
It is exactly the same with contraception. Catholics do not have to use contraception, that is their personal religious freedom at work. They DO, however, have to fund contraception for those members of this country (or their business!) that wishes to use it in accordance with their freedom.
Also, since you are clearly unwilling to answer my point about business owners who are members of religions in which basic, commonplace medical interventions are outlawed and how your idea would change their health plans, I will assume you have no argument with how inane your view of “religios freedom” truly is.
@Snuss,
You do realize a huge part of medical care costing soooo much today as opposed to 50 or 60 ears ago is insurance right?
So now Ted thinks it is a reasonable approach to let the Federal Government create a pharmacy and manage the acquisition and dispensing of birth control! This from a man who does not want the government messing in healthcare in any way! Maybe the business owner should find out the cost of the prescription program for the insurance they want to provide, and just add that total cost to the premiums that the employees have to pay. That way the owner is not paying for birth control, and his religious freedom is not being “trampled”.
He also thinks it is alright for Catholics to have access to birth control as long as they pay for it. This from a man who believes it is against God’s law to practice pharmaceutical birth control, but a Catholic can break those laws as long as they pay for it. Oh sure, they will go to hell if they die with that mortal sin on their soul, but they made the choice, and paid for it, so it is their problem. Then again, they may continually go to confession and do their penance – even knowing that they will “sin” again!
And then there is SNuss. Why would he think that because an employer “opts out” of providing insurance for their employees the entire insurance industry will collapse. If some employers make that choice, there will still be the vast majority of employers that will provide insurance and a vast majority of individuals who will buy their own insurance from insurance companies. This demnd is more than enough to guarantee that insurance comapnies as we know them today will continue. To reach the “boogie” man conclusion that SNuss has reached shows his complete lack of knowledge of the insurance industry and/or the function of demand and supply in the business world. But then, he has consistantly shown that in any discussion on the PPACA.
JRM, it’s not complicated. A religious person who objects to paying for these medications in HIS business, as ruled by the courts, should be allowed to opt out to pay for or dispence this medication. It’s his business, not the governments, and they are infringing on his religious faith, period!
Some devil worshipers in prison have requested that they be allowed to run around their cell naked and howl at the moon for their religious freedom and it has been granted. People who say it’s against their religion to cut their hair have been allowed to let it grow. The largest religion in the U.S. should be granted the same privilege to not have anything to do with killing babies!
The downfall of Ted’s argument here is exposed by his refusal to answer whether he’d allow members of other religions to do the same thing he’s advocating for Catholics.
“…I’m not going to sit and argue with you all day long on some trivial, mundane point again and again, such as your Jehovah’s Witnesses or your Christian Scientists…” (http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2013/02/13/obama-needs-to-fact-check-his-state-of-the-union-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-113506)
That’s a nice try, but this is not a “trivial, mundane point”; this is the crux of the argument. If Ted wants to allow employers of any religion to exclude coverage of anything they decide violates their religion, then employers would suddenly develop religious opposition to any expensive procedures. For example, there would be nothing to stop employers from excluding treatment of cancer. This scenario would be the death knell for employer-provided health plans and could quickly lead to voters preferring a single payer system, which Ted opposes. On the other hand, if Ted were to admit that he wants the government to allow this only for Catholics, that would violate the establishment clause. Put simply, this is an untenable position and it’s obvious why Ted is not engaging in substantive discussion about this issue but only repeating the same lines over and over.
Posted:
February 26, 2013 at 5:37 pm
February 26, 2013 at 7:59 pm
February 26, 2013 at 8:19 pm
February 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm
cjr1 sez: “You do realize a huge part of medical care costing soooo much today as opposed to 50 or 60 ears ago is insurance right? ”
And how is having government run our insurance an improvement? Insurance companies have an interest in making their product as efficient and as affordable as possible, to get and keep customers. A government-run monopoly has no such incentive, and current government programs are already rife with waste and fraud. I don’t see an “up” side in this, unless you are one of the moochers, or the politicians who buy their votes with our tax dollars.
Snuss,
Yes, having a 310 million person pool of potential customers for drug companies, medical devices, etc. would have no leverage to drive down costs…..
Obviously, you ignored my comment “current government programs are already rife with waste and fraud. ”
I haven’t seen any government program LOWER costs on anything.