Patrick J. Reilly reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that Catholic institutions must pay for birth control in their health insurance plans, even though it violates their religion. Otherwise, they are guilty of discrimination:
Last week, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal government took a giant leap toward encroaching on the religious liberty of Catholics. Reuben Daniels Jr., director of the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C, ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. With health-care reform looming before the country, this ruling is a bad omen for people of faith.
In 2007, eight faculty members filed a complaint against Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., claiming that the school’s decision to exclude prescription contraceptives from its health-care plan was discriminatory against women. “As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church,” said the college’s president, William Thierfelder, at the time. . . .
The ruling against the college is certainly consistent with the commission’s published guidance on “pregnancy discrimination.” The EEOC has found that contraceptive coverage is mandated by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (even though the law concerns pregnant women and does not, by strict interpretation, consider discrimination against all women of childbearing potential). North Carolina also has made its position clear with a law requiring employers to cover employees’ contraceptive expenses if other prescription drugs are insured.
The difference, however, between the EEOC’s guidance and the North Carolina law is that the latter exempts religious employers such as a Catholic college, whereas the commission fails to consider that the tenets of a faith may preclude an institution from offering such benefits.
And that’s the rub: Increasingly it is clear to Catholics and other religious groups that without very clear exemptions for religious employers—and conscience protections for individual doctors, nurses, pharmacists—federal health-care laws and guidelines could severely restrict religious freedom in the U.S. . . .,
Perhaps there are those who would say that this is an issue for only a minority of religious people. Catholics are nearly alone in their objection to contraceptives—and many Catholics regularly violate the church’s teaching on the issue. But consider abortion. The EEOC says that pregnancy discrimination does not apply to an employer’s refusal to cover abortion expenses, “except where the life of the mother is endangered.” When will a federal court argue that if insurance coverage to prevent pregnancy is, by inference, mandated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, then why not abortion to end a pregnancy?
An assault on Catholics’ religious liberty endangers everyone’s religious liberty.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I still see this as a left-kingdom issue. The state isn’t telling Catholics what their doctrine should be. Do their employees get health coverage or don’t they as part of their wages? What if a religion were morally opposed to organ transplants or immunization?
#2 jonathan
or blood transfusions…..
I suspect that this has something to do with whether or not the catholic organization will get public funds or not even though the article does not frame it that way.
If that is the case, there is really no issue here.
It may be a left hand issue, but that does not mean that it is bad policy. The only way for the Catholic college to comply with this ruling and not violate its own doctrine is to stop providing health insurance. Problem solved, now you tell me if that ruling is good public policy.
Opps – first sentence should say:
“It may be a left hand issue, but that does not mean that it is NOT bad policy.”
Jonathan – there are those who are opposed immunizations and in Wisconsin, they don’t have to receive them. The immunization law has an exception.
There are many private insurances that do not cover birth control because it is not medically necessary.
“… ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives …”
Apparently, the prescription contraceptives are available to male employees, then?
Or… did I miss something about “discrimination?”
Mike, learn basic biology.
Jonathan @ 2: But the state IS telling the college what its insurance should cover. And forcing them to pay good money to cover things that are unconscionable under Catholic doctrine. Why is that a good thing? Why is it any of the government’s business? And, no, FWS @ 3, this is not merely a public funding issue. This is an EEOC regulation. There is no option to disobey and merely lose your public funding.
When people cry that government needs to “do something” about this crisis or that crisis, my response always is “well, is it worth giving up some of your liberty over?” Because everything the government does is coercive. Laws are passed, regulations are written, and the people affected must obey or face penalty of law, without flexibility. Worse, bureaucrats enforce these laws and regulations. Our liberty drips away, bit by bit, in exchange for a bit of pottage. Liberals can see this when it comes to regulation of “bedroom activities”, but they are blind to it as it affects all of the other aspects of our lives, for some reason.
Besides the direct regulation necessary to implement whatever government program we have demanded to address a “crisis”, there is all of the follow-on “nanny” regulation. In health care, these are the helmet laws, seat belt laws, snack taxes, blah, blah, blah. All under the justification that we need to protect the public treasury that we’ve committed to health care by regulating that people stay healthy. A vicious circle.
We need to get government OUT of health care, not increase its involvement.
End of rant
Jonathan @ #1… as long as all stipulations of the contractual agreement are made known and agreed to by both parties, then what place is it of the gov. to interfere with this private contract? See Matt 20:1-6 esp. “Did you not agree…” and “Do I not have a right to do what I want with my own money?”
Caesar has spoken, so we must render. Just as long as it doesn’t devolve into King Darius ordering the people to fall down and worship him (i.e., give up the faith.)
The views of our Protestant fathers on birth control were far closer to the Catholic view than many of us are today. Abortion, also, used to be looked upon strictly as a Catholic issue, until Protestants gave it more intelligent thought.
Although our views on justification differ, Protestants are closer to the Catholic God than to the god of this world, or at least they should be. Any imposition of the world’s views on a Catholic’s freedoms should be cause for strong concern.
The views of our Protestant fathers on birth control were far closer to the Catholic view than many of us are today. Abortion, also, used to be looked upon as a Catholic issue, until Protestants gave it more intelligent thought.
Although our views on justification differ, we are closer to the Catholic God than to the god of this world, or at least we should be. Any imposition of the world’s views on a Catholic’s freedoms should be cause for concern.
THIS IS PROOF THAT ” THE GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS LEAST GOVERNS BEST ” IF THAT STATEMENT IS AT ALL TRUE, THEN THE UNITED STATES MUST BE THE BEST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD WITH THE BEST PRESIDENT THAT EVER LIVED!