When NH's mandate passed a dozen or so years ago, I didn't recognize its significance. I opposed the bill, but I settled for quietly shaking my head instead of taking up the argument. After all, in accordance with my religious faith, I wasn't using contraceptives, and I wasn't working for a religious institution with moral objections to contraception. It did not occur to me or to anyone else in the room that NH's mandate, and similar measures in other states, would help pave the way for the federal government's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require that all Americans purchase health care, define contraception and abortifacient drugs as "preventive care", and refuse to recognize conscientious objections to this arrangement.
(I'll save for another day a fuller treatment of just what kind of health problem contraception "prevents".)
Back in 1999, that would have seemed a huge leap. Now, looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to see what was coming. It is to the great credit of American Catholic bishops that they have been so outspoken in defending religious liberty against this encroachment (see their statement here). That's a start. The bishops have done their job. It's now for the rest of us to bring the no-mandate message to Concord and Washington.
The HHS mandate plays strange
games with health care, and thus with people’s lives. It says certain
procedures are “preventive” and thus must be free to women. No co-pay. Except that's not
really free: everyone, including women with religious objections to the
procedures, must pay, since everyone will be required to carry insurance.
Religious institutions providing insurance to employees will have to pay to
include that coverage even if the procedures violate the tenets of the religion
in question. There is no opting-out. In response to protests, the President has delayed implementation of the mandate to August 2013, as though the outrage will cool by then.
What will happen at that time to religious institutions, such as hospitals and adoption agencies, that will not pay into such a health care system? They can knuckle under, which is undoubtedly what HHS expects, or they can close down, or they can continue to operate but pay heavy fines to the government.
But what about the First Amendment?
The HHS mandate attempts to get around that by exempting certain religious
employers – but not the ones that serve people of other religions. As others
have pointed out, Jesus and the apostles would flunk that test. Employers
refusing to submit to the mandate will be fined.
A government that attacks my religion today can
attack yours tomorrow. Today, I am being told that I can hold whatever beliefs
I want, as long as I’m prepared in August 2013 to pay a fine for
taking those beliefs seriously. Tomorrow, or next week, or next year, you could
be getting that message.
It does not matter if those of us who reject the mandate are in a minority. The Bill of Rights was not put into the Constitution to protect majorities.
When the American bishops spoke up earlier this year, they were greeted with a well-orchestrated
& well-funded campaign promoting a lie: that anyone
opposing the mandate is waging war on women.
I don’t have an advertising
budget. I don’t have Nancy Pelosi’s phone number to ask her to set up a mock
hearing for me. I am not a photogenic 30-year-old Georgetown law student with a
publicist. I’m simply a New Hampshire neighbor, here to get my message across
as best I can.
A co-pay is not a war. Respecting Catholic beliefs is not an act of
war. When you keep your hands out of my pocket when you pay for your preventive
care, that’s not an act of war.
On the other hand, a federal
mandate that threatens the Catholic Church’s ability to operate thousands of
schools and hospitals and adoption agencies DOES amount to a war on women. When
this mandate imposes a fine a on a church that is one of the foremost health
care providers in the nation, that’s not only a First Amendment violation. It’s
stupid, shortsighted policy that will have a devastating effect on American
women.
Today's hearing in Concord featured women complaining that repealing the state mandate would inhibit access to contraception. Note to senators: access doesn’t mean free. Ask any
store owner. At least eleven agencies in our state offer family planning
services on a sliding fee scale, so financial need is not barrier to access.
The HHS mandate, and the state-level mandates as well, are not really about preventive health care
except to those who consider women’s fertility to be a disease. A mandate that
threatens Catholic health care providers undermines the very meaning of health
care. In fact, if you’re concerned about women’s health, you’ll defend the
church’s freedom to do its work.
Up to now, people of faith have “rendered unto Caesar”, as
the saying goes, on things like this. Just as I behaved when NH's mandate was enacted, we’ve gone along to get
along. The HHS mandate is a line in the sand, drawn by Caesar, and it’s time to
say “we’ve rendered enough.”
I'm not asking for any favors here. I am a citizen, and I claim the protections of the First Amendment against
those who would force individuals and institutions of any religion to participate in
providing procedures they recognize as immoral. That's solid ground on which to stand.
A co-pay is not a war, fertility is not a disease, and religious faith is not a crime. Senators in Concord and HHS bureaucrats in Washington evidently need to be reminded of this.
(This post is based in part on remarks I delivered to the Standing Up for Religious Freedom rally in Concord last month.)
No comments:
Post a Comment