Miles's blog

The Republicans are up in arms about religious organizations not being forced to provide health insurance which includes contraception coverage.  They have jumped up on their soapbox hammering on this so-called intrusion into religious freedom.  Some Republicans want to expand this far beyond contraception into “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”  (Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, according to the New York Times.)

This opens up a pretty wide window.  As several organizations point out, this could lead to denials of coverage for things like childhood immunizations.  The clown Santorum complains that pre-natal testing for Downs syndrome and other conditions support abortions.  I suppose he would desire a law which says employers could opt out of providing coverage for that.  How about Christian Scientists?  Could they simply refuse to provide health coverage at all since they don’t believe in doctors?  How about Orthodox Jews-could they refuse to provide coverage for routine office visits on Saturdays?  Could employers claim their religious or moral beliefs prohibit consumption of alcohol and then refuse to provide coverage for treatment?  How about cirroshis of the liver?  Had their employee not indulged in demon rum he would not need a new liver, so let’s leave that out. Where does this end?  Why stop with health insurance?  Should other laws which conflict with religious beliefs also be exempted?

America has fought this battle since its inception.  Because religion by its very nature is personal and, by definition, deals with beliefs and subjective understanding of the world, people possess widely varying and often extremely unusual beliefs, or at least claim to.  But society as a whole has a right to infringe on some of these beliefs to maintain a greater good.  Polygamy was declared illegal a long time ago, a law upheld by the Supreme Court.  Yet apparently many people today still believe polygamy is a preferable way to live (or at least to watch a tv show about other people living this way).  Others have been forced to have their photo taken for driver’s licenses or undergo vaccinations prior to entry to school.  Parents have been forced to allow medical treatment for their children.  Some have been denied the use of psychoactive substances.  

Merely claiming you hold deep personal or religious beliefs does not grant unlimited rights to engage in any activity you desire.  Certainly reasonable accommodation needs to be made so that no one’s free exercise of religion is prevented or hindered.  But should an ancient Maya show up and demand human sacrifice, a practice they believed was just as important as the ritual of any current religion, I don’t think we would need to accommodate their beliefs.  A famous Supreme Court case allowed a state to ban the ritual slaughter of animals.

The question should not turn on how deeply-held or firmly-established the belief is, but how much infringement is taking place and how important is that infringement to the goal of the government’s law or policy, and then finally how necessary is the rule.  A debate along these lines would be valid on the issue of providing contraception coverage.  Should people like the clown Santorum, who despite his claimed dislike of higher education actually has a college degree, wish to raise issues of exactly how important is the need for contraception coverage and how much infringement does it do to the beliefs of the Catholic church and others, the debate could be lively and informative.  However, in today’s political climate, principled debates are seen as anachronistic, while bombastic attacks and “lines in the sand” are viewed as statesmanship.  

OK, I am going to cut this off short today so I can run to the beach.  It is 77 and sunny.