Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

The Fleecing of Religious Liberty

Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard (and former ambassador to the Holy See), John Garvey, president of Catholic University, and Robert P. George of Princeton, and Carter Snead, among others, are with Yuval, too

 Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.  It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage.  For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers.  More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual.  They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.  It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer.  What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.  This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty.  The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

 Signed:

John Garvey

President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin

Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

_______________________________________________

Jean Bethke Elshtain

Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics in the Divinity School, Department of Political Science and the Committee on International Relations, The University of Chicago

Tom Farr

Director of Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Georgetown University

Richard W. Garnett

Associate Dean and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Patrick MacKinley Brennan

John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies and Professor of Law, Villanova University

Gerard V. Bradley

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Paolo Carozza

Professor of Law and Director, Center for Civil and Human Rights, University of Notre Dame

George Weigel

Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Gilbert Meilaender

Duesenberg Professor in Christian Ethics, Valparaiso University

President Timothy O’Donnell

ChristendomCollege

Dr. William K. Thierfelder

President, Belmont Abbey College

Steven Smith

Class of 1975 Endowed Professor of Law, San Diego University

Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley

Professor of Law and Director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program, Fordham University        

Michael Stokes Paulsen

Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law The University of St. Thomas

Prof. Alan Mittleman

Professor of Modern Jewish Thought

The Jewish Theological Seminary

Rabie Meir Y. Soloveichik

Director, Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought, Yeshiva University

Micah J. Watson

Director, Center for Politics and Religion and Assistant Professor of Political Science, Union University

Helen Alvare

Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University

Michael Moreland,

Associate Professor of Law, Villanova University

V. Bradley Lewis

Associate Professor of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America

Matthew J. Franck

Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution, the Witherspoon Institute

Kristina Arriaga

Executive Director, The Becket Fund

Christopher Tollefsen

Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina

Rusty Reno

Editor, First Things

Ryan Anderson

Editor, Public Discourse

Patrick Lee

Professor of Philosophy, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Francis J. Beckwith

Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University

William Imboden

Assistant Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas

Patrick Fagan

Senior Fellow and Director, Marriage & Religion Research Institute

Gerald R. McDermott

Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion, Roanoke Collegee

Austin Ruse

President, C-FAM

Ramesh Ponnuru

Senior Editor, National Review

Donna Bethell

Chairman of the Board, Christendom College

Father Jonathan Morris

Author, Televison Analyst

Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral, NYC

Father Terence Henry

TOR President of Franciscan University of Steubenville

Marianne Evans Mount

President, Catholic Distance University

Robert D. Benne

Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College

William Edmund Fahey
President, The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (NH)

Michael Novak

George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy, American Enterprise Institute

Bernard F. O’Connor

President, DeSales Unviersity

Thomas S. Kidd

Associate Professor of History and Senior Fellow, Institute of Religion, Baylor University

Joseph Knippenberg

Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Maggie Gallagher

Institute for Marriage and Public Policy

Robert C. Odle, Jr.

Partner, Weil Gotshal and Manges

Nancy Matthews

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   6

EXPAND  

The Ponderer
   02/10/12 17:22

I think it should become increasingly obvious that this might be a standard Chicago or Illinois-style political tactic--the powers that be are supposed to give the objecting party a fig leaf of cover that can fool the masses, and the objecting party is supposed to take it. Lest power grow annoyed.

If I am correct in my supposition--that Obama's team are merely relying on time-proven methods from their past--then I think at some point it becomes a reasonable question to ask if the voters of the city of Chicago proper or Illinois as a mass are actually as stupid and easily misled/steered as the use of such tactics woud make them seem.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/12 17:54

Why would not the religious employees simply not avail themselves of such service? Simply having them AVAILABLE, violates the church''s conscience?

It violates their ability to control the personal life of their employees. Don't they trust their own employees not to partake of evil contraception?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/12 18:11

Interesting letter. A few thoughts ...

"This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy."

The majority of our states already have this particular mandate in place, and within those states the Catholic Institutions have complied with very little drama. Whatever it is that indeed "gave rise to the controversy" today, it is demonstrably NOT due to any substantive change in a mandate that has already been widely implemented and complied with by religious institutions nationwide.
___________________________________________

"The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust."

It is positively propagandic that this "uproar" is being characterized as "bipartisan". Out of 175-ish cosponsors, only a handful of Dems have cosponsored HR 1179, and last I checked there were no Dem Senators among the 40 who are cosponsoring the Senate's version. Further, there is nothing remotely bipartisan about any of the activism surrounding either side of this issue, unless you wish to count the GOPers who have advised that this is an altogether losing tack for the GOP to take. (Holy understatement.) External Link 
_______________________________________________

"[Any mandate for contraceptive coverage] is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience ..."

Not so, according to the many religious leaders who've signed on to the Joint Statement below -- among them Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims -- and not according to the majority of our nation's people of faith and conscience. Y'all have seen the polls, right?

External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/12 18:23

Oops, I forgot to include ...

"The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment."

Yeah, about that. Justice Scalia, of all people, has already deflated that argument: “[T]here is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”

External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/12 18:32

Geez, it would be just terrific if EVERYONE stopped saying that Obama and his minions don't "understand" what they are doing here. They know absolutely, unconditionally and unrepentantly exactly what they are doing here. Further, they know absolutely, unconditionally and unrepentantly the true meaning, nature and scope of the Ist Amendment protections and the fact that they are eviscerating them.

Oh, they have done stupid, demented and ridiculous things, many of them. But, not this time. When their authoritarian impulses intersect the Constitution they invariably elevate the former, no matter the adverse consequences to the latter. It is in their DNA. It is deliberate. It is planned. It after all reflects their abiding belief in the primacy of men and the importance of lies in the pursuit of a greater truth. How else is one to create heaven on earth?

The first step in successfully vanquishing such an enemy is to avoid demonstrating to that enemy weakness and irresolution. Public statements that avoid the candor which compels the unavoidable conclusion that these are fundamental, irreconcilable differences, lead inevitably to the view that these are but mere misunderstandings. This in turn leads one to take the great risk of deluding oneself into thinking that if it were just explained in full, then the enemy would come around and agree.

Never. Going. To. Happen. Why? Because they are doing precisely what they want to do. Consequences be damned. They are transforming the country, and no mere, ancient parchment no matter how venerated is going to be allowed to get in their way. If they get away with this, only worse things will happen in the future.

This is the hill we need to be prepared to die on. And, if that is our choice, and I pray that it is, then we can skip the polite, diplomatic posturing that implies we and our enemy are both reasonable and rational and can reach accord in a calm, reflective manner.

This is a war, and we cannot prevail if we fudge the truth and thereby make it the first casualty.
Stu

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/12 19:27

Thank each of you for authoring this letter and putting your names to it. If you'd like more names, publish it so we can all sign! Christians of all stripes need to stand together against this federal government intrusion on individual freedom and conscience. God bless!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact