Chris, you are wrong when you say it is a violation of religious freedom for the Obama administration to require large employers of institutions with religious affiliations to provide insurance that covers contraception for employees. Churches, which are religious entities, are exempted. Universities and hospitals that serve the public and employ people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs should not have the right to deny such coverage to people who do not share the church’s institutional position. In my view, that is a larger violation of religious freedom. Beyond that, it violates the rights of employees to receive the same insurance that the law requires be available to other workers. And beyond that, it is a matter both of women’s rights and women’s health.
I have heard the argument that “liberal” Catholics who helped to pass the Affordable Care Act are incensed that their opposition to Secretary Sebelius’s decision was not respected. They apparently feel their support for ACA earned them policy chits in another area. Why? Presumably, they thought the act was a good idea and a step toward making insurance available to everyone. Did they feel their support was somehow contingent on the idea they would be able to veto the rights to contraception for women who want and need it?
I have long been troubled by the ease with which the church I was baptized in waves its wand over the most deeply personal of human choices. The sexual scandals within the church in recent decades have found clergy and religious throughout the church covering up the most terrible of crimes against children out of a desire to protect the church’s reputation and, I think, out of some sense of loyalty to people who have shared their vocations, in spite of their violations. I think that loyalty could not be more horribly mistaken, but on some level I almost understand it as an empathetic reaction.
It is deeply sad to me that people whose vows and chosen vocations have meant they have not faced real world decisions about child rearing, family size, maternal and infant health, and family financial pressures not only pass down edicts about what is right and wrong in terms of contraception but also show so little empathy for the people whose sexual choices are at variance from those edicts. I find it profoundly immoral that someone in the hierarchy may look the other way when a priest sodomizes a child and yet pound down an iron fist of opprobrium when a woman makes her own very personal choice about family planning. Your ire and sympathies are misplaced, Chris. There is no need to valorize the moral position of institutions (hospitals and universities are people?) over their workers who have a smaller voice but their own moral position and rights.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 100 Comments »