2 comments  

Check out the contribution Elizabeth Sepper and I made to the U.S. News and World Report “Room for Debate” discussion about:

 

Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control?

Last month, President Obama announced his administration’s plan to require religious employers, like universities and hospitals, to cover contraceptives in employee health plans. Obama’s new mandate would not require employers at houses of worship to provide their employees with contraceptives, but his announcement sparked a firestorm in different religious communities, pitting freedom of religion against the separation of church and state.

Obama has since said that he and his advisers are looking for ways to make the new requirements “more palatable” to religious institutions.

Proponents of the requirement argue that 98 percent of women in the United States have used birth control in their lives and that free access to contraceptives reduces unwanted pregnancies and lowers abortion rates. Likewise, they point to the separation of church and state, a key American doctrine, and hold that religious views on contraception have no bearing in the workplace. No one is requiring the use of contraception, their argument goes, only requiring that it be available to those who want it.

Unsurprisingly, Speaker of the House John Boehner and many Republicans have vowed to fight the president’s new policy. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” Boehner said in a floor speech on Wednesday.

Opponents of Obama’s proposed requirement argue that requiring religious people to provide birth control violates religious freedom, another one of the country’s foundational tenets. They say that requiring people to violate their consciences is bad policy and that the president is getting involved in a culture war to stimulate his liberal cabal in an election year.

Should religious institutions be required to cover birth control? Here’s Katherine Franke’s and Elizabeth Sepper’s take:

Please vote “YES” on their website, in favor of our position!

Religiously owned or affiliated organizations ought to play by the same rules as other employers

The better way to frame the question is: Should employers with a corporate relationship to organized religion be permitted to avoid constitutionally protected health measures that every other employer must follow? Of course not.

Setting aside the politically charged question of contraception for a moment, would this issue be so difficult if we were considering a demand by a Christian Scientist-owned construction company to be exempted from state-mandated health and safety regulations for its employees because it prefers to rely on prayer? Of course not.

Religiously owned or affiliated organizations that employ people of all faiths and backgrounds ought to play by the same rules as every other employer, including being subject to health, safety, and labor regulations. They provide goods and services to the public and are the beneficiaries of ample taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. Their status as religiously owned or affiliated shouldn’t allow them to pick and choose which public regulations they must comply with.

The Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers—except for houses of worship and a narrow array of religious organizations—to cover contraception is smart health policy. What’s more, it strikes a balance that respects both religious diversity and employees’ dignity and liberty.

Click here for the rest of our argument.

 

2 comments

  1. Please vote YES on right to health care coverage for contraception for employees of religiously-affiliated employers! http://t.co/Jm4iGlH7

  2. Please vote YES on right to health care coverage for contraception for employees of religiously-affiliated employers! http://t.co/Jm4iGlH7

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.