# Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570 "2012-02-02T20:12:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/181 "2012-02-07T23:57:02Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Whether I am anti-religion or not, I’m definitely pro first amendment. I just don’t see how this stops them from practicing their religion as individuals or as a group. At all. It doesn’t. Nobody is tying up a monk and giving him a vasectomy. Nobody is forcing a nun to take the pill, and nobody is harnessing up the pregnant catholic women/wives and aborting them. These are _options_ paid for by the health insurance with nobody forcing anybody to use these services. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/182 "2012-02-08T10:52:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What does that have to do with religious freedom? It means that any claims that you’re doing this for people’s own good are full of shit. > [@aruvqan](#): > > It doesn’t. Nobody is tying up a monk and giving him a vasectomy. Nobody is forcing a nun to take the pill, and nobody is harnessing up the pregnant catholic women/wives and aborting them. These are _options_ paid for by the health insurance with nobody forcing anybody to use these services. Oh, well. As long as the government isn’t running a damn _eugenics program_, who cares, right? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/183 "2012-02-08T13:36:35Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > It means that any claims that you’re doing this for people’s own good are full of shit. > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Originally Posted by **aruvqan** [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14750783#post14750783) > > It doesn't. Nobody is tying up a monk and giving him a vasectomy. Nobody is forcing a nun to take the pill, and nobody is harnessing up the pregnant catholic women/wives and aborting them. These are *options* paid for by the health insurance with nobody forcing anybody to use these services. > > > > ``` > > Oh, well. As long as the government isn’t running a damn _eugenics program_, who cares, right? Yes. It is neutral. The government is neither encouraging nor discouraging the use of contraceptives, vasectomy/tubal ligation not medication as birth control, not abortion in any form [medically required nor as birth control] just making sure that it is available. They are not forcing the distribution of the pill, condoms or plan B. They are making them legal to be available to the populace if the populace wants them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/184 "2012-02-08T14:21:10Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > It means that any claims that you’re doing this for people’s own good are full of shit. Yes, just like overtime pay laws, workplace safety regulations and every other law that interferes with an employer’s God-given right to do whatever it likes with its employees. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/185 "2012-02-08T14:39:45Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > You are of course still welcome to preach the evils of contraception, but Mormon’s can’t practice polygamy, and the Amish can’t opt-out of Social Security. My understanding has always been that Amish (and other groups meeting similar criteria) could opt out of Social Security. [http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm](http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm) Am I incorrect about this? I don’t suppose it has many implications for the case at hand either way. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/186 "2012-02-08T15:06:05Z")
Self-employed members of recognized religious groups with a religious objection to life, health or retirement insurance plans can opt out, provided their community/faith can demonstrate a history of self-sufficiency and some other things. Basically, it’s for the Amish and Mennonites. [IRS Form 4029](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf). Note that Amish who work outside the Amish community (ie., for non-Amish employers) are not exempt. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/187 "2012-02-08T18:43:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Self-employed members of recognized religious groups with a religious objection to life, health or retirement insurance plans can opt out, provided their community/faith can demonstrate a history of self-sufficiency and some other things. Basically, it’s for the Amish and Mennonites. [IRS Form 4029](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf). > > Note that Amish who work outside the Amish community (ie., for non-Amish employers) are not exempt. It also has a grandfather clause that no religion or institution established after 1950 can claim this exemption. The distinction here is that was a legislative change, not a judicial one. The legislature went back and re-wrote the tax code to carve out that exemption for the Amish. The judges have consistently said that generally applicable laws which have a side effect of proscribing or prescribing things which offend religious practices do not offend the first amendment. In fact, the [Lemon test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test), asks if a law has “a primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion” because if it does then it probably offends the first amendment. Laws with a secular legislative purpose, not primarily about advancing/inhibiting religion, or “creating excessive entanglement” are considered just fine by the first amendment. The details of individual laws and communities and exemptions are complex. For example not long ago it was illegal to use peyote in religious ceremonies, even in a recognized church, under the supervision of a minister, etc. That’s part of what _Employment Division v Smith_ was about. Since that time Congress has passed a law making an exemption to the controlled substances act for peyote use during specific ceremonies in recognized religious establishments, etc. Prior to that law peyote use was illegal under generally secular laws regarding controlled substances. This did not offend the first amendment. It was a side effect. Similarly when Social Security was first established the Amish were required to pay into it. The Congress and LBJ changed that, not the courts. The courts have repeatedly told religious petitioners saying their beliefs should exempt them from a generally applicable law to go pound sand. The Mormons, the Amish, Native Americans, Jews, and even Catholic Charities have all had their religious based objections tossed out on their ears. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/188 "2012-02-08T20:47:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Entered into a discussion on another site {can I like to the article?} about the Obama admin’s decision to not grant religious exemptions to employers concerning insurance coverage fpr contraceptives. Some have been saying it’s violating thier religious freedom by forcing religious employers to pay for procedures they find sinful. [Rachel Campos-Duffy Compares Jamaal Bowman to Jan 6 Rioters](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/contraceptive-mandate-is-not-about-religious-liberty-its-about-female-liberty/...What) say you? I say it is a false and highly hypocritical argument. “They” do not mind “enforcing” their personal religious view on other people at all. They see no problem in allowing or denying something to others based on “their Bible”. But when it is “someone else’s Bible” they howl like scalded cats. I can smell their hypocrisy from here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/189 "2012-02-08T20:54:09Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > It also has a grandfather clause that no religion or institution established after 1950 can claim this exemption. The distinction here is that was a legislative change, not a judicial one. I did not mean to imply that the Amish exemption was an argument in favor of “this is a violation of freedom of worship”. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/190 "2012-02-09T01:36:49Z")
I’m not really sure I understand what the big deal is. Regardless of their personal coverage the religious groups are paying for contraceptives even if their employees are not covered themselves. It’s not like the money you pay in is sitting their waiting for your use. It goes into a big pool and is paid out to anyone who submits a claim against any policy issued by the insurance company. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/191 "2012-02-09T10:27:07Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > One item that I think has been overlooked in this manufactured controversy is that Catholic groups [have tried this in 2004](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/supreme_court_rejects_catholic_charities_challenge_to_contraceptive_benefits/) and lost: > > …and then [again in 2007](http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/us-supreme-court-denies-review-new-york-law-requiring-insurers-cover-contracept): > > So…is the hew and cry now “because Obama did it”? That’s exactly what it is and the GOP candidates are running with it. Oh what a horrible thing the president did that has already been done repeatedly on the state level. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/192 "2012-02-09T10:33:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Who writes the check to the insurance company? The check is for insurance, period. Nothing specific > [@](#): > > Well, that’s not exactly my position. My position is that government shouldn’t force religious institutions (either churches or affiliates) to provide insurance policies to their employees that contain provisions that violate the Church’s positions unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don’t see the compelling reason here. Gender eqaulity, employee rights, certainly those are far more compelling than church affiliates who serve and hire outside the faith, enforcing beliefs their own members ignore. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/193 "2012-02-09T12:26:34Z")
I agree with John Mace here. There is a big difference between the normal wages that are paid to an employee (with which it is implicit that you are allowed to buy whatever you want with) and a third party product that you buy for the employee as part of his wages. If that third party product doesn’t comply with your beliefs, you are in effect “endorsing” what it provides. Nobody sees the difference between a church employee taking $100 of his wages and buying services from a prostitute versus the church providing a $100 gift certificate for use at a brothel? Is there a difference between handing a homeless guy a Big Mac Combo versus handing him $6? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/194 "2012-02-09T13:05:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Nobody sees the difference between a church employee taking $100 of his wages and buying services from a prostitute versus the church providing a $100 gift certificate for use at a brothel? Would you have any problem with churches telling their non-Catholic employees, if they use birth control, or have abortions, they are subject to dismissal? Can the federal government prevent churches from enforcing such a rule? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/195 "2012-02-09T13:06:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > There is a big difference between the normal wages that are paid to an employee (with which it is implicit that you are allowed to buy whatever you want with) and a third party product that you buy for the employee as part of his wages…If that third party product doesn’t comply with your beliefs, you are in effect “endorsing” what it provides. As has been mentioned several times, merely by buying insurance they are—in that sense you mention—implicitly “endorsing” what it provides, due to the way insurance works. Except it is kind of stupid to think like this about insurance products. Am I endorsing a young kid driving recklessly because he’s got great insurance with the same company I do? > [@](#): > > Nobody sees the difference between a church employee taking $100 of his wages and buying services from a prostitute versus the church providing a $100 gift certificate for use at a brothel? This analogy is just terrible and I don’t understand how it makes sense to you. Insurance is a fairly unique product and the way insurance companies act is relatively well known to all parties. Analogies will only serve to make this conversation harder, because they can’t illuminate any relationships. The church doesn’t care about insurance companies providing birth control, it cares about its employees _using_ birth control. It can still care, and its employees are still as free as ever to not use birth control. > [@](#): > > Is there a difference between handing a homeless guy a Big Mac Combo versus handing him $6? Obviously, there is a difference. Please explain how this difference involves the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/196 "2012-02-09T13:17:29Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I agree with John Mace here. There is a big difference between the normal wages that are paid to an employee (with which it is implicit that you are allowed to buy whatever you want with) and a third party product that you buy for the employee as part of his wages. I agree, but I also think the government has the power to establish minimal standards for services. Imagine if you worked for a company founded and operated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they wanted to withhold health insurance that covered blood transfusions and organ donation. It’s an employer’s duty to cover their employees’ health care costs in some reasonable manner. It’s an employee’s right to have your health care covered according to the reasonable expectations of society, and that includes birth control. [Most states already require contraceptives be covered and most of them require religiously affiliated organizations to cover it.](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf) Catholics and libertarians need to get their panties out a wad. ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/197 "2012-02-09T13:27:13Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The church doesn’t care about insurance companies providing birth control, it cares about its employees _using_ birth control. It can still care, and its employees are still as free as ever to not use birth control. > Obviously, there is a difference. Please explain how this difference involves the first amendment. I don’t think your explanation is quite accurate. A religious institution which objects to this mandate, does not object _because_ it wants to prevent its employees from using the product; it objects because **it does not want to be forced to buy the product**. As has been observed many times in this thread, insurance is difficult to classify, since it is not simply wages or money, nor is it necessarily a purchase of every item that happens to be covered. I think the best solution would be for HHS to allow an exemption for the institutions on the conditions that the institutions clearly explain to current and potential employees that the items are not covered. HHS should also work with insurance companies to develop a catch-all rider for those items to be made available to persons working for exempt institutions who wish to have that coverage. It’s not perfect, but I don’t think a perfect solution exists. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/198 "2012-02-09T13:31:00Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > It’s not perfect, but I don’t think a perfect solution exists. People could just stop listening to celibate men in dresses, agree that birth control is a reasonable expectation of health care, and move on with their lives. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/199 "2012-02-09T14:11:35Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > I don’t think your explanation is quite accurate. A religious institution which objects to this mandate, does not object _because_ it wants to prevent its employees from using the product; it objects because **it does not want to be forced to buy the product**. But 28 states already force religious institutions to buy insurance that includes birth control. Why has that not been a problem? This is just a political talking point for conservatives; if Obama does it, it must be bad. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/200 "2012-02-09T14:31:44Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > I don’t think your explanation is quite accurate. A religious institution which objects to this mandate, does not object _because_ it wants to prevent its employees from using the product; it objects because **it does not want to be forced to buy the product**. It isn’t buying birth control. When I paid for my car insurance, was I buying body work? If I never use it because I never got into an accident, should I get my money back? “Buying a product” analogy is a flawed way to look at insurance. We all know how insurance works. I don’t see why we have to resort to analogies. Show me a catholic that cannot observe the prohibition on birth control, and you have my support. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=11)