Comments

Bob Schultz

February 14, 2012

“Religious leaders and their institutions (for example schools or hospitals) enjoy the tax benefits and subsidies that the State provides them, but question the right of their employees to equal protection under the law?”

Denial of a benefit is not denial of equal protection. A religious institution opposed to birth control and abortion as a principle of faith should have no obligation to pay for such services through its healthcare plan. Are you advancing a position that acceptance of tax benefits and subsidies require compromise of deeply held religious beliefs?

“Will parochial schools cover an abortion pill for a teacher who is raped?”

It depends on the religious beliefs of the employing institution. If the religion of that institution believes that abortion is mortal sin under any circumstances, the answer is obviously no. Employees are informed of healthcare benefits at the time they accept an offer of employment. If they desire insurance coverage for abortion, perhaps they should think twice about accepting the offer of employment from that institution.

“Are these conservative leaders as committed and concerned about First Amendment rights when it comes to Muslims and Sharia law?”

This is a red herring thrown in an attempt to smear religious conservatives as hypocrites and bigots. It does not work. Islam is opposed to abortion, much the same as Orthodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Christians.

“Politically conservative clergy ought to be more honest with their parishioners as well as with public.”

Where is the dishonestly is putting forth one’s religious beliefs as it relates to birth control and abortion? On the subject of honesty, why do you feel it necessary to employ the straw man device, “an attorney friend made the following observations…”? Based upon your previous blog entries and columns, I surmise that you hold these views, so why not proudly take credit?

Nancy Rueth

February 14, 2012

Thank you Bob for this reasoned response.  When I read the initial comments that you responded to so effectively, I was frustrated with the ignorance and flippancy on an important First Amendment issue.  Among other things, I thought… 

Mr Kahn’s lawyer friend needs to reread the Bill of Rights (as well as the definition of equal protection).  The relevant provision of the healthcare law, as interpreted by HHS, is against the free exercise of religion.

Bad laws/bad regs must be fought.  Heavens, in this year when we remember the 50th Anniversary of the Eichmann trial, the need to stop any abridgment of freedom of religion at any level seems especially clear.  This is not a Republican nor Democratic issue; it is a freedom of religion issue.

Re “subsidies”:  Many non-profits/religions get funds from gov’t.  These funds cover services they provide that government can’t provide as well.  Getting paid for services provided doesn’t mean govt “owns” the groups.  A friend who is a big supporter of the very good work done by The Met Council noted a parallel.  What if their gov’t money came with the provision not to serve kosher meals—perhaps because it is more expensive or because the Pork Council lobbied as hard as our pro-abortion groups have lobbied the Administration?  Should Met Council then change?

As to the woman raped, she can buy insurance on her own to cover abortion/contraception/sterilization.  She could also opt to pay for it out-of-pocket; the pill costs less than a daily Starbuck’s coffee.  The Church says they will refer all employs to another service provider for these services; they do this now in the 28 states with similar but less stringent laws.  The Church cannot pay for nor endorse something that they consider murder as well as against the commandments. 

BTW, I voted for Obama.  This is not a Democratic or Republican issue.  It is an issue of freedom

Ray Ward

February 14, 2012

“An attorney friend…,” no doubt of the law firm of Dewey, Lie, and Howe.
  Congratulations to Gil for getting that fine legal opinion, he was able to catch up with his “attorney friend”, as the latter was about to overtake the ambulance.

                              Ray

Ben

February 15, 2012

The following quote summarizes, validly, the Church view:

“We consider it an elective drug,” the bishops’ spokeswoman, Deirdre McQuade, said. “Married women can practice periodic abstinence. Other women can abstain altogether. Not having sex doesn’t make you sick.”  I guess if you get “sick” just pay out of pocket.

Or as the commenters to this posting suggest, a woman can exercise her constitutional right to an abortion by paying “out of pocket”.  Why did our President and Harvard law school graduate not think of that: get raped find out you were impregnated, forego the starbucks and buy an abortion on the open market.

Of course the free exercise clause is the issue. How that issue is resolved deserves some nuanced analysis—the compromise solution for example is a creative solution.  What the religious right must remember is that there is also an establishment clause.

Bob Schultz

February 15, 2012

Ben:

Should the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark be compelled to provide its employees with healthcare insurance, which covers contraception and abortion, despite being in violation of Canon Law? Persons accepting employment with a Catholic institution clearly understand that the Church will not fund what it considers immoral or sinful behavior. Like anywhere else in the workplace, if compensation, including healthcare benefits, does not meet a prospective employee’s expectations, that person is free to decline the offer of employment.

Are you blinded by your own bias or simply being disingenuous when you state, “Or as the commenters to this posting suggest, a woman can exercise her constitutional right to an abortion by paying “out of pocket”? There simply is no “constitutional right to an abortion”. In Roe v. Wade, the USSC held that based upon an inferred right to privacy, states cannot bar abortion during the first trimester; that during the second trimester states cannot bar, but can regulate abortion procedures to promote maternal health; and that upon attainment of fetal viability (third trimester), the state may regulate, and go so far as to prohibit abortion except to preserve the “life or health of the mother.”

You reference the “establishment clause” (of the First Amendment), which prohibits Congress from creating a State religion, i.e. The Church of England, favoring one religion over another or favoring “believers” over “non-believers”. Unless there is a religious or secular requirement to provide contraception and abortion as healthcare benefits, your reference is misplaced.

 

 

Ben

February 16, 2012

I am not blind or disingenuous.  Perhaps more charitably, I disagree with your analysis.  There are so many important themes warranting discussion. What is the best way to promote freedom: negative or positive libertry? What do Griswold and Roe stand for?  What is the nature of free choice?  If we only have an “inferred” right to privacy as this comment string suggests is it more ephemeral today than it was 20 or 30 years ago?  Complicated questions that the President provided an appropriate compromise for in the contraception debate.  I do not purport to ahving the answers to these weighty questions.  However, I am not a poor woman choosing between unemployment and a job opportunity with health coverage that excludes womens health issues, if I were, I would be shocked to learn that it is as easy as not taking a job or foregoing a strabucks I cannot afford.  The issue this debate truly exposes is the unfinished business of the debate over Griswold, Roe, Casey and health care.  Do we have a right to privacy? If so, how large is that zone of privacy free of state interference? Does the right apply to individuals and organizations equally?  Is healthcare a public good or a private right?  What is the state’s obligation to its citizens and what are the obligations of citizens to the state?