The administration, as Corner readers are well aware, has decided to require religious institutions that offer insurance to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, whether or not they object to covering them. Churches would be exempt but not, for example, Catholic universities or hospitals. Earlier today Kathryn noted that Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) is introducing legislation, which he calls the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, responding to the administration’s move. Good for the senator: Although the administration’s policy may well be a violation of the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, additional legal and political backing for religious freedom would be helpful. Senator Rubio is also one of 24 co-sponsors of a bill on this subject by Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), S. 1467 (“Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”). The Blunt bill was produced in anticipation of the administration’s decision and with input from many of the groups fighting for conscience protection. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R., Neb.) has a companion bill in the House.
From glancing at the texts, the earlier bill looks somewhat broader: It covers moral as well as religious objections, it has more specific protections for medical providers, and it doesn’t limit protections to the specific cases of abortion and contraception. It might make sense to merge these bills or in some other way work out a joint strategy for advancing the cause that the senators share.
Personally, I would prefer to have the Keep the Federal Government out of the Business That Should be Regulated by the States Act. Yeah, this is an infringement on the 1st Amendment, but before that, it's an infringement on the 10th Amendment.
When the federal government begins to concern itself with the kind of insurance that local churches, or any local employer, is offering their employees, they (not coincidentally) also begin to fail to do the things that are within their constitutional purview, like controlling the border and keeping crazy death-cult members from flying passenger planes into buildings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Ramesh on tactics, and they should all rally around the broader bill.
With the possibility that the rank euthanist Sebellius will be with us four more years, along with her boss, who is on record as disfavoring the US Constitution in favor of his own fake "living" version, no bill to protect our religious liberties can possibly be too broad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo Catholic hospitals in the U.S. usually primarily employ Catholic doctors and nurses?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would that matter one way or the other?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAwesome. I can get a job at a Wal-Mart and K-Mart in the outdoor department and refuse to sell guns because violence against anything is against my religion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. This is more like you personally being forced to buy a plan health care that covers things that you object to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the Obama Administration believes that religious freedom applies to organizations (and then only to ones they deem worthy) but not to individuals? A businessman has too abandon his faith if he hopes to earn a living in Obama's America?
Religious freedom is very important, but do people even understand what insurance is? An actuary cannot compute the likelihood that someone is going to get frisky. Birth control is not a medical treatment. Mandating this type of coverage means that everyone has to pay for birth control pills (plus an insurance company profit markup) through their insurance premiums, whether they need them or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting stuff. I'm curious about a few things--not sure if anyone around here can help out.
* The earlier bill covers moral objections. Would those be covered by the Establishment Clause?
* It's not limited to abortion and contraception. Does it specify what other issues it covers?
I suppose I'm really curious about the breadth of both of these provisions. If moral objections are allowed, and the scope of objections isn't limited to specific issues, then it essentially seems like anyone can refuse to do anything provided that they cite a moral objection. Maybe that's wise and maybe that's not, but it seems like it would be good to know the details.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting stuff. I'm curious about a few things--not sure if anyone around here can help out.
* The earlier bill covers moral objections. Would those be covered by the Establishment Clause?
* It's not limited to abortion and contraception. Does it specify what other issues it covers?
I suppose I'm really asking about the breadth of both of these provisions. If moral objections are allowed, and the scope of objections isn't limited to specific issues, then it essentially seems like anyone can refuse to do anything provided that they cite a moral objection. Maybe that's wise and maybe that's not, but it seems like it would be good to know the details.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse