Dear Editor:
It appears that the Obama administration has a major problem with the concept of freedom of religion. First, it tried to stop a church from firing an employee with ministerial duties. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in the case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC that under the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government does not have any say in the hiring and firing practices of employees with those duties.
Now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that religious organizations could delay but not opt out of a requirement that all health plans must cover contraception (including the morning-after pill) and sterilization with no co-pay. This goes against the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and some other Christian denominations.
Should the government be allowed to dictate to religious organizations obligations that they vehemently oppose? I realize that many readers oppose the tenets of the Catholic Church but do they also believe that the Church should abandon its principles and conform to the wishes of the government?
Will Catholic schools and hospitals comply with this intrusion into moral beliefs? If push comes to shove, I believe that they will drop healthcare for all their employees rather than submit to government dictates. Is this the optimal result?
There is a solution. There is legislation in Congress exempting Catholic institutions from HHS requirements. I urge all of our legislators to support this bill.
I would like to ask the Chronicle to follow up on this issue and report on how our representatives plan on voting.
Dragonmacfb posted at 3:53 pm on Mon, Feb 20, 2012.
I think the reader should express a few more facts about the case they cite before they claim that the "Obama administration has a major problem with the concept of freedom of religion". This case was born long before Obama was even in office. The facts of the case are it was brought about based on the rules signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in 1990. Her medical condition of narcolepsy was the reason she was dismissed.
"On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and Perich then filed suit in federal district court alleging that the church had retaliated against Perich – in violation of the ADA – by rescinding her call after it learned that she had a disability and was contemplating legal action." Quoted from pewforum.org 1
Now lets address the EEOC of 2005 which was run by President George W. Bush appointee Cari M. Dominguez August 6, 2001 to August 31, 2006. The case was continued under Bush appointee Naomi C. Earp September 1, 2006 to Jan. 2009.
By the time Obama had an appointee to the EEOC the case was well on it's way to the Supreme Court. The only argument you could make is the the Justice Dept. and EEOC could have dropped pursuant arguments on the case. This would have been foolish since the to previous rulings on the case where in contrast. This case needed to be argued to the high court. The fact that it was argued to the Supreme Court only by Obama's Justice Dept. is irrelevant. Many a Bush Justice Dept and EEOC people pursued this case.
As far as the ruling by the Court I would say I agree with parts of the ruling but it is a fine line to allow a broad exemption to dismiss any employee for any reason just because they work for a religious organization. The court offered no real solution for the issue and how to decide when the imaginary line is crossed. She was a teacher who taught mostly secular subjects but had some "religious responsibilities" totaling about 45 min per day. What the court appeared to intimate is if her role was purely her secular teaching job her case would have merit.
As far as the contraceptive care issue I do not believe a bill in congress will be necessary since the Obama administration is already working on exemption that have been made for church in the past. Many states including NYS have laws on the books like this that force employers to provide contraceptive care. It is a matter of finding a way for the care to be available to the employee if they want it and not have the church violate its tenets. Personal Freedom trumps in my opinion and it should not be up to the employer to tell the employee they can not use contraception. Considering that the last survey I saw said 77% of Catholics have no problem using contraception you might have an issue if the church truly mandated this as a requirement for employment.
I hate to tell the writer that religious freedom is not absolute. If it was I believe it was in Buffalo NY where a husband chopped of his wife's head because she committed adultery. His religion allowed him to commit this "honor killing". If I took the time to search as you could there are many other instances where religious freedom is not always allowed.
Sorry to be so hard on you but I have strong issues with subjects being talked about "in the bubble". If you where unaware of the facts as I have shown above, sorry again. I only mean to clarify that one, this type of law for contraceptive care has been adopted by many states and the church have had to deal with finding exemptions or a work around, nothing new. And two Obama did not start the case you cited and this idea that he is promoting some war on religion is just, wrong.
Footnotes:
1. http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/The-Supreme-Court-Takes-Up-Church-Employment-Disputes-and-the-“Ministerial-Exception”.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/supreme-court-puzzles-over-religious-groups-and-bias.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?_r=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
Edited by staff.