HHS order violates nation’s right to freedom of religion

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an order last week requiring that all religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities that receive federal funding pay for FDA-approved contraceptives for employees, even if said organizations disagree with the use of contraceptives. The decision predictably caused an uproar, and rightfully so, because the Obama administration is completely out of line.

Proponents of the mandate argue that it is long past due. They contend that, once a religious institution enters into seemingly non-religious activity, such as running hospitals, they must then follow the same laws as secular employers. What proponents fail to realize is that religious institutions view their hospitals, schools and charities as extensions of their religious faith and activity. The Catholic education apparatus, for example, was formed as a response to the bigotry that Catholic immigrants experienced upon arriving in the United States. They, along with Lutherans and other religious minorities, built a new education system based on their own religious principles and values, which had been shunned by society. Moreover, numerous states across the country have adopted versions of the conscience clause, a law declaring that religious institutions may choose not to provide or support medical activities or services if they feel that doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The Obama administration, in its mandate, threatened that if religious institutions didn't follow the mandate they would lose their federal funding. This threat is a clear form of punishment.

Another argument pushed by supporters of the HHS decision is the claim that women will now no longer experience discrimination. The argument claims that all sorts of male medications—such as male enhancement drugs—are covered but contraception for women is not. If this is true, so what? Religious institutions have not railed against such drugs because they don't violate their principles on the issue of life. Birth control clearly does. Furthermore, there are ample opportunities for women to seek out affordable and effective birth control, without their religiously affiliated employer having to pay for it.

The decision also sets a bad precedent. What if a conservative government takes over next year and attempts to dismantle pro-choice initiatives by threatening to cut their funding? How can we oppose such a move if we support the Obama administration's incursion?

But to me, this issue is mostly about religious freedom. I support women having access to birth control, as do the overwhelming majority of Americans. The law allows for this thanks to the landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut. I'm also staunchly pro-choice and I realize that women's reproductive health is under attack by conservative extremists, as evidenced by the foolish, and now reversed, decision by the Susan G. Komen foundation to cut off grants to the invaluable organization Planned Parenthood.

Nonetheless we still live in a country whose constitution clearly proclaims the freedom of religion. Directing religious institutions to violate their beliefs is an assault on those rights. No one forces anyone to work at a Catholic school or hospital. Anyone who chooses to be employed at such a place knows what the church's dogma is. No one is forced to work there and nor should the church be forced to cover something it finds objectionable or immoral. No bureaucrat at HHS should be ordering America's churches what to do. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "In justice, too, to our excellent Constitution, it ought to be observed, that it has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary."

—Juan Thompson '14 is a political science major.