Written by Rabbi Dennis S. Ross for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Photo: Sarah C / Flickr
We have been hearing plenty about “religious liberty” lately. Now let’s see who’s using the term “religious liberty” in a novel way, trying to conceal a campaign of religious overreach.
The issue has to do with the faith-based legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Recently, a Missouri mining and manufacturing holding company, O’Brien Industrial Holdings, filed a lawsuit against the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The lawsuit challenges the ACA employer requirement to include birth control coverage in employees’ health insurance. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri filed an amicus brief supporting the ACA contraception rule. The brief examines the O’Brien complaint and considers the arguments in light of modern legal history.
Even though O’Brien is a secular business, the company maintains that the birth control rule violates its religious liberty — a claim that does not stand up to deeper examination. First of all, workers earn their employer-sponsored health insurance. The insurance belongs to the worker like any other earned benefit, such as salary and pension; it is as much a worker’s personal property as a pay check — the employer’s religion doesn’t belong there. After all, workers may well have different and personal moral understandings about access to birth control and no judge, politician, or office boss has any business barging in.
Moreover, a look back at recent history shows two things. First, similar laws in New York State and California have prevailed in state-level legal challenges. And second, as described in the ACLU brief, a business cannot use religious liberty as an excuse to practice religious discrimination.
In 1966, three African-American customers, denied service in a South Carolina restaurant, sued for discrimination under the federal Civil Rights Act. The restaurant owner claimed his faith required that the races be kept apart and that the Civil Rights Act violated his religious liberty. The owner lost and rightly so. Ten years later, Virginia’s Roanoke Valley Christian Schools added a “head of household” salary supplement to the pay of married men — not women. When sued under the Equal Pay Act, the schools offered another religious liberty defense, asserting that their faith imposed different expectations for married men. They lost, too. And in the 1980′s, the religiously affiliated Bob Jones University of South Carolina relied on faith teachings to ban inter-racial dating and marriage under threat of student expulsion. A lawsuit followed and the school lost. In all these cases, the courts agreed: Each person has a right to hold and express a private religious belief, and is allowed to act on those beliefs, but only up to a point. Religious liberty does not exempt a person or organization from respecting the civil rights of others; religious liberty does not allow for religious discrimination.
You see, the ACA is about insurance coverage; it is not asking anyone to use birth control. And the worker earns the insurance and owns it — the employer’s religion is secondary. Yes, O’Brien’s human resources office will carry a tiny responsibility here — processing paper that has the words, “birth control” written on it, but that concern is minor compared to the moral standing of the employee who privately decides to rely on prescription birth control for basic preventive health care and family planning. What is more, the employer bears no additional cost by including birth control coverage. An insurer actually saves money when a policy includes birth control, as opposed to spending more on care when a policy does not. Bottom line: Your boss does not belong in your medical decisions. A court recently ruled against O’Brien, whose lawyers say they will appeal.
My faith, along with many others, has long recognized that birth control, including emergency contraception, are critical health and economic concerns for many American women and their families. Our denominations have long affirmed women should be able to get birth control and we are heartened to see it available just like any other preventive prescription. Religiously-motivated lawsuits, like the one brought by O’Brien Industrial Holdings, a mining company, are intended to make it harder for women to get birth control, which is all the more tragic during these challenging economic times when many families lack the income to make ends meet.



16 Comments

So if I was of a religious sect that did not believe in hospitals only prayer and faith I could deny all my employees health insurance completely?
If this passes then I see a lot of CEO converts to these sects because of the savings. Of course when the CEO’s are caught using hospitals they will just say they slipped or had a momentary crisis of faith.
Does the court want to set a precedent that employers religion can dictate how they treat their employees?
Suppose I was Mormon drinking and smoking which they don’t believe in do lead to higher insurance costs.
To avoid those costs I do not discriminate in hiring that would be illegal but would I have to promote drinkers, smokers?
Would Catholics have to cover Gays with AIDS or women who engage in premarital sex and get a disease?
Funny how none of these employers care about the that bible rule you don’t work on the Sabbath.
If you don’t consistently follow ALL your religions teachings can you claim to have religious reasons to deny healthcare when you only pick and choose the beliefs that help you?
What about JC saying give all of your goods to the poor if you would follow me?
If you don’t do that then you are not following JC and cannot claim belief in Christ as religious justification to deny healthcare coverage.
Yet another example of the right wing playing the victim card. They’re angry that they aren’t being allowed to micromanage the sex lives of their fellow citizens, including those of different faiths–or no faith at all.
Things, I think the diary said the court ruled against O’Brien Industrial Holdings. The answer would be, “No.”
Rabbi,
“Religiously-motivated lawsuits, like the one brought by O’Brien Industrial Holdings, a mining company,…”
Surely you jest! O’Brien Industrial Holdings has as much religious motivation as a hog. What they are motivated by is a chance to save one or more almighty dollars.
“What is more, the employer bears no additional cost by including birth control coverage.” How true. With that I can offer no improvement.
You think they give a shit? Not about anything having to do with their employees private lives. They care about their perogative to offer health care as they see fit – and nothing more.
Obviously Congress and President Lincoln banned plural marriage to limit health care costs of Mormon men having dozens of children, and fortunately the Supreme Court upheld the birth control of Mormons.
Put simply… Christian Republicans feel strongly that no one should have sex unless they are married and willing to risk having every sexual encounter result in a live child birth. Anything that tampers with this ‘right’ order of things is deviant behavior in their eyes, so they use selective quotes from their holy book to prevent others from doing such things. Abortions and contraception only allow women to live unholy, hedonistic lives. Homosexuality is a lifestyle they find to be an abomination, but one apparently so appealing that it would replace the ‘traditional’ family structure immediately if legalized. Etc…
It’s their unhealthy, neurotic view of sex, combined with their obsessive need to control others’ lives, that is driving this issue… not faith.
Gawd and their Grand Wizards are the key to their regression. But the real question is, why the flirtation with theocracy?
Because the white devil’s religion is failing.
My, my do I detect Ludogenes roaming the halls of Humanism looking for a few honest cynics?
Perhaps they confuse fundamentalism and fascism.
“…the white devil’s religion is failing.” Has already failed, but something calling itself Christianity has risen again in the USA in a spasm of reaction to modernity (civil rights, opening the closet, the sexual revolution, marriage equality, etc.), which taken together has unhinged some segment of the white devils.
I’m afraid I agree with Rabbi Ross, however. I expect it to get a hell of a lot worse.
Congratulations! A real challenger.
I will now withdraw to a dark place to contemplate who shall get the prize for most cryptic, you or Ludwig.
I’m sorry, doremus, I think I almost understood your comment @ #12. Therefore you will need to polish your technique to compete with Ludwig. He is still the Grand Master of Obscurity.
Oh, I thought I was rather transparent, but here is the short explanation.
Ludwig has suggested that I exhibit the telltale signs of a die hard cynic: he is correct.
I responded to his comment #11 by suggesting that he too is indeed a militant cynic, and I employed in a playful manner the old story of Diogenes looking for an honest man to emphasize my point.
It was a play on words: I was having some fun.
He and I have a love, hate relationship: Usually we love to hate each other.
Yes, and that’s why you lost the obscurity prize.
“He and I have a love, hate relationship: Usually we love to hate each other.”
How odd. I thought Ludwig was loved by one and all. How’s that for obscure?