The Catholic Bishops, Republican Party and GOP presidential candidates have managed to convince much of the national media that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion is at stake in the Administration’s proposal requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception services. They’ve got it backwards.
Spokesmen for the Bishops claim that the rule deprives all Catholic employers, not just Catholic churches and institutions, of their religious freedom. Some go further by arguing the insurance rule shouldn’t be imposed on any employers, because that would force people who disapprove of contraception to pay into insurance pools that then provide coverage for contraception.
This is a very cynical con, a bait and switch that needs to be called out. So let’s start with the foundation. The First Amendment to the Constitution says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Catholic Bishops and GOP politicians now exploiting the issue repeatedly claim that the provision implicated is the prohibition against the “free exercise” of religion. But as you can see, there are two prohibitions here: the second is the “free exercise” clause; the first is against the “establishment of religion.” It is this “establishment clause,” not the “free exercise” clause, that is really at stake, but it’s not the Administration that’s causing this.
The Bishops spokesmen’s constant invocation of “freedom of religion” and GOP faux hysteria about a “war against religious freedom” are ways to convince us this is the correct framing. Obscuring that this is really about the “establishment clause” is the political bait and switch the Bishops and GOP are now using to con the media and the American people.
We should first recall that the Supreme Court has never held the prohibitions in the First Amendment to be absolute. We have freedom of the press, but a newspaper can’t lawfully libel someone. Similarly we have freedom of speech, but you can’t defame someone, and governments can adopt laws limiting speech like “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowed theater” or inciting a riot and even prescribe rules on the time and place where “free speech” can occur. We also respect “freedom” of religion, particularly as to beliefs, but government can still pass laws preventing religious organizations from exploiting child labor, or sacrificing virgins or your first born child, or conning the congregation into drinking poisoned Kool-aid, even if that’s claimed to be a religious ceremony.
Notwithstanding the language, “Congress shall make no law . . .” it has always been permissible under the Constitution for government to enact reasonable labor protections and health and safety rules that affect everyone, including employees of religious institutions. That’s why no one is surprised that half the US states already have rules requiring insurers to cover contraceptive services for almost everyone, and the Supreme Court is fine with that. Some states may exempt church employers, and others not; but that is a matter of accommodation, it’s not because it is constitutionally required.
In short, there is nothing about the proposed Administration insurance rule that violates the “free exercise” clause. And no one, least of all this Administration, is in a war against religion or religious freedom; those, especially GOP candidates, who say otherwise are simply nuts or shameful demagogues.
What’s happening here is that the government has chosen to adopt a rule relating to health care. Proponents often say this, and some media may dismiss this as ducking the religious issue, but it’s not. It’s consistent with what we’ve done for decades. Contraception is about health care, mostly women’s health care, and sometimes life-saving health care; but it’s clearly health care. When government addresses contraception, it does so for health reasons, not religious reasons. Government can adopt rules to protect women’s health and safety without violating the First Amendment.
What about the “establishment clause”? This is how the bait and switch happens. The Catholic Bishops do not believe contraception should be used; it shouldn’t be available at all. They don’t mean just unavailable to Catholics; they mean not available to anyone. They want the legal rule to be: no contraceptives for anyone, so no insurance coverage for contraception services for anyone.
Religious freedom says they are free to believe contraception is wrong, that it violates their religion. Government can’t force them to believe otherwise; it can’t force them to exercise a religion they don’t believe, except that government can, for health and safety reasons, require everyone to obey reasonable rules to protect peoples’ health and safety, even if some believe such regulations are inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
Religious freedom doesn’t mean the Catholic Bishops, or any other religious leaders, have the right to impose what they believe on everyone else. When we cross over to the realm of what the rules should be for everyone, and the pushing is coming from a religious purpose, it’s more likely we’re talking about that other clause, the establishment clause. And that’s exactly where the Bishops are.
Those who oppose any contraception insurance coverage want to prevent the government from having a rule that requires contraception, or have it adopt a rule prohibiting the coverage of contraception. And they want this not for health/safety reasons, but for declared religious ones. In other words, they want a government rule that imposes their religious beliefs on everyone else. That’s not about the “free exercise” clause; that’s “establishment of religion.”
It is the Catholic Bishops and the GOP politicians exploiting this who are pressing to have government violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. And that’s the real Constitutional violation at stake here.
(h/t to Digby on the Boies video)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



44 Comments

As a woman, this has me livid. Why should such morally and intellectually bankrupt individuals as the Catholic Bishops get any say in women’s health care? They are pedophiles for Christ’s sake.
I’m am sick and tired of my civil rights being tossed around like a football year after year, political season, after political season.
IT. NEEDS. TO. STOP. NOW.
As women, when these politicians and so called religious leaders open their mouths and even hint at undermining our rights, we need to start screaming. Our rights are not political or religious fodder.
And Karen Handel and Nancy Brinker need to find a new species to identify with. They are not my sisters.
I refuse to be a political pawn any longer. The likes of the Catholic Bishops, Gingrich, Santorum, the Komen Foundation, Obama and all the rest need to get off their high horse; it ain’t theirs to ride.
“Contraception is about health care, mostly women’s health care, and sometimes life-saving health care; but it’s clearly health care. When government addresses contraception, it does so for health reasons, not religious reasons.”
This is a public health issue, and it is unacceptable for lawmakers to treat it as anything else. I don’t understand, either, how Boies can make the argument the employees of a “true religious organization” should be exempt from the law. This is about the 3:35 mark in the video clip.
Thank you, Scarecrow. Highly recommended.
There is another greatdiary
on this subject by Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check.
“Contraceptive use is normal. It is used by 98 percent of sexually-active women in the United States at some point in their lives, including 98 percent of Catholic women; indeed many women rely on it for most of their reproductive lives. It is a public health issue, it is a medical issue, it is an individual health issue. Contraception is about maternal, infant and child health; it is about desired family size, family formation, and the most basic and profound choices individuals can make–whether, when and with whom to bear and raise a child. It is also about medically-indicated conditions which women face for which birth control is prescribed. It is a foundational issue for the social and economic participation of women. It is an individual human rights issue. And every domestic and international medical body with any legitimacy recognizes it as such. It is not about the religious freedom of religious corporations institutions a la Citizens United, but about the health and religious freedoms of individuals, the vast majority of whom clearly disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
That our lousy, cowardly politicians and shitty president use women’s health as a human shield to protect themselves from the religious right is below contempt. “spit”
American Catholics use birth control. This is all about politics and not at all about religion. If Obama and his people can’t figure this out, they are more hopeless than I thought.
Thanks. Listening to Boies, it’s clear he’s describing the NY law, explaining it has an exemption; he’s not arguing that there should be an exemption.
I see, thanks.
Amanda Marcotte nails it when it comes to the USCCB:
(There’s more, and definitely worth a read.)
Sadly, no one at the White House appears to know the First Rule of Blogging: “Do Not Feed the Trolls.”
Here we go with the red herrings. They’re all pushing your buttons, folks. Gotta get off the subject of losing your homes to the banksters.
This directly impinges on the Grand Bankster Bargain – whatever can distract that bull and have the twirling dancer lose his/her balance will be in play till we forget there are folks out there really, really hurting with the backbone of this country well and truly broken; so we look away and just fall back into our divisive ruts. These kinds of issues certainly attract attention but do the good job of dividing us into opposing camps and meanwhile they lick their chops and steal us blind.
I was disheartened this morning not by the actions of the criminal oligarchy, which I have learned to expect, but by the old habits we can’t let go of even in the face of such outrage. If we want new things to happen we have to become new people. Don’t let them do this to you; chuck that corporate butt – the last one! – into the trash, be it a cigarette or something else. You don’t have to be a corporate slave, foul the air, spout inconsequential ideology. Be a free spirit, make your own decisions!
I know, I sound like a troll, and this is the only comment I will make on the subject of distractions from now on. If it sounds like nitpicking, it’s truly not. They get at us through these very slothful habits. We need to value ourselves more; it’s all part of growing up.
Isn’t the POTUS a constitutional lawyer?
I’ve got my fingers crossed the the SCOTUS throws the entire fucking law out anyway, so there’s that.
As for this issue, which the media is going rabid over, I think the Catholic Church is trying to portray itself as a victim in the eyes of the nation in an attempt to make people forget that they are (as an institution) behind the biggest and most horrendous systemic abuses of children in the history of this country (excepting slavery).
Fuck the Catholic Church, fuck the ACA, and our waffling President pound sand.
Thanks for the article, Scarecrow. The Catholic Church just makes me sick, and our media being complicit in this horseshit makes me even sicker.
He’s also a “community organizer” who likes to send in tanks to break up peaceful protests.
Yes. But he doesn’t let that impact political decisions. Obviously.
Boxturtle (if I was his law school, I’d want his diploma back)
Amen! Amen! Amen! This, and the Right-to-Life BS are diversionary tactics to conceal the organizational pederasty of the Church of Rome.
My msg to the church: Not everyone sees homosexual relations with underaged males as an appropriate method birth control.
Boxturtle (If God WANTS you pregnant, it’s not going to matter what contraceptive you use)
Thanks for the post, Scarecrow. The hysteria on the right is truly a dodge. No where in the policy does it say that churches are required to do anything. If a church is in business, it should be held to ALL the laws, proccesses and policies that govern BUSINESSES. The end.
Catholic Bishops STFU. (Little Rick and Mit you too)
Boy, there are few issues that tend to evoke such a “knee-jerk” reaction from everybody as this does.
No doubt that BOTH the Catholic Church and Obama need some “spin doctors” on this.
“(If God WANTS you pregnant, it’s not going to matter what contraceptive you use)”
———-
Good point. Look at Mary.
“If the president does it, it’s NOT illegal.”
Where’d I hear that???????
Well said, teuzday.
OT, is Oscar from Philly with you guys in Tampa? If he is, tell him steve the Occupy Supply guy from Lancaster says ¡hola!
Another example of abstention failing. Yet it’s the only acceptable form of birth control for some.
Boxturtle (It’s written in your own Holy Book that this doesn’t work!)
That Church’s contempt, if not downright hatred, for women and children is staggering. Its ability to avoid accountability for the rape of children is a complete mind bogglement. Latest example from this morning:
“8,000 new instances of child sexual abuse alleged in Milwaukee Archdiocese”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/10/8000-new-instances-of-child-sexual-abuse-alleged-in-milwaukee-archdiocese/
Ooops. Forgot my manners. Thanks for giving this story the attention it so deserves, Scarecrow.
8,000 previously unreported cases of sexual abuse in archdiocese of Milwaukee. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/10/8000-new-instances-of-child-sexual-abuse-alleged-in-milwaukee-archdiocese/
I don’t know if anyone from Philly is in Tampa. It’s about a 200 mile r/t from Orlando, so I can’t get there very often. I’m thinking about going for a visit on Sunday.
This is well thought and written Scarecrow.
I wrote the following yesterday:
“There is a long list of female-only health concerns that the pill is used as medication for treatment or control.
Amazing, the Catholic church wants to deny care for these health concerns.
Hormone induced migraines
Menorrhagia
Hormone induced depression
Postpartum depression
Are just the few off the top of my head.
The list is very long. They should be ashamed.”
Sounds like Obama would be better off to offer single payer to all employed at catholic/religious institutions fighting for this change and then yank the federal dollars going to the institutions.
That is what I would do.
I agree. Could not be more clear.
I think the greatest disgrace of many in the handling of this, is the utter failure of the Obama administration to frame the issue properly.
It is not about religious freedom or if the Pope is Catholic but about employee rights and employer perogetives. Does a business have the right to penalize employees based on the management’s religious dogma? Just one more example of the fatal dysfunctions of trying to achieve universal health care by way of employer based for profit insurance.
Well said, but I wouldn’t be so polite about your feelings.
Back when JFK was running for POTUS, there was a great hue and cry about how the pope was going to take over the US Gov’t through his minions. Of course, like all reasonable people, I believed that was pure conspiracy fantasy. There was no way our Constitution, our laws, and our courts would allow a bunch of crusty, arrogant, isolated, metaphysically solipsistic satraps to dictate public policy on behalf of some furriner in Rome.
Ding. Wrong again. Thanks for playing.
Didn’t see that you’d already posted the link. Just got in from errands & jumped to end.
Too bad you don’t get to make the call. I will vote for you.
And then Jehovah Witnesses could offer their employees insurance policies where blood transfusions are an extra-cost option.
A man without religion is like a fish without a hook.
Very well put. Many people are arguing the wrong point.
Truth is that we have two very corrupt systems arguing over something that should be left to the medical profession and the patient. If the doctor sees a need for a treatment or prescription for a patient then it should be covered by insurance. It would be great if these pud-pullin, rump wrangling, jerkoffs in congress would address the issues the people sent them to address. As for the Catty cardinals-SDSTFU. When you start to pay taxes then we will listen to what you have to say.
Thanks.
I think there’s TOO MUCH freedom of institutional religion which impinges on our government’s policies, individual rights and freedom of NON religion. The founders warned of the insidious influence of religious and corporate control. Now corporations fund the mega churches and the puppets in the three branches of gov’t. The Catholic Church is nothing but a multinational corporation in disguise, highly profitable and operating tax free and exempt from many laws. We must fight to prevent the backward movement they advocate. The Komen issue demonstrated the power of the people to exert pressure against those who would force anti-women’s health policies. We must keep up the pressure on every such issue.
thanks scarecrow. I’ll use this.
If people insist it’s a constitutional issue, then remind people that it’s the establishment clause they’re forgetting.
Thanks! recc’d
Let’s see, they don’t want to pay for contraception or abortion because they disapprove of them on religious/ethical grounds. Fair enough. I disapprove of war and imprisonment for marijuana posession, “illegal” immigration and many other ‘offenses’, and especially capital punishment — also on religious/ethical grounds. I further do not approve of privatized prisons or medical care, and think that Medicare (at least!) should be able to negotiate for pharma discounts. So can I deduct the portion of my taxes that go for things I believe are wrong? Fair is fair, after all.
And speaking of taxes, there should be *no exemptions* for churches or charities. If they are really non-profit, as in, an audited financial statement shows that they did not make a profit using the normal accounting rules (GAAP), then they don’t pay any taxes. If they did, they pay — simple. Shouldn’t present any problem for ‘real’ charities.
They want to have implicit State sanctioned CONTROL of women PERIOD. Can anyone say Saudi Arabia or Iran. They want Sharia law imposed on all WOMEN.
And, for those of us old-timers, the by-line for that story is David Ferguson, our old Thesaurus Rex.
Sick of all this venom aimed at women.
Precisely. Thanks for this piece, Scarecrow.
This is not about religious freedom.
This is about a special interest seeking exemption from civic and personal rights that have national application. This is about permitting archaic levels of social control to be exerted by a private party over not just its voluntary members but its employees, too. All under color of federal law, which is what makes it a federal political and legal issue.
This is not about religious freedom. It’s about carving out exemptions to federal law for special interests, partly in hopes of gaining electoral support in a presidential election year. It is also a sop to private employers hoping to reduce the cost of their benefits. Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take Washington.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering about TRex the other day while attempting to write an angry letter to my congress puppet.
Glad to see he’s still writing.
I’m with you HotFlash! I have to pay taxes for war, capital punishment, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc. all of which I condemn. Also, Catholic charities such as hospitals, etc. are really just big employers. How is a big employer different from a little one? Can the owner of the Taco Bell refuse to pay for employee health care? Does he get such an exemption if he owns 30 Taco Bells and employs 200 people? What’s the difference? Who is in charge: the church of the state?
If anyone has a religious freedom issue here, it is the non-Catholic employees of Catholic enterprises. The Catholic bishops are attempting to impose their code of behavior on their non-Catholic employees.