Town and Country Newspaper

News Article

An Attack on the Constitution?

Written by Larry Roeder, Editor
2012-02-09

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” - From the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently announced that, under President Obama’s new health-care law, most employers and insurance plans would have to cover birth control free of charge to employees as a preventive service for women, most employers nodded their heads. Many agreed that “It made sense to do so.”

The administration ruled that churches and houses of worship did not have to follow that requirement and a sigh of relief was heard. But, recently Sebelius clarified that many religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities that provide services to the public must comply with providing health coverage that includes contraceptives that include “The morning after” pill.

In the administration’s earlier ruling regarding churches and houses of worship, they tiptoed around the Constitutional landmine with only a few disagreeing. But, with the latest announcement more people are raising the issue of whether or not the Federal Government is interfering with the free exercise of religion. This has nothing to do with who leads the religious group or the level of care or service the religiously affiliated institutions provide to the public.

There are many people in the United States whose religious convictions will be tested by the edict. Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews are among them. Some people feel that it’s an infringement on their religious views. How will they keep from compromising their beliefs while conforming to this Federal Mandate?

Non-profit groups that currently do not provide contraceptive coverage because of religious beliefs have a year to comply with the directive. If they choose to cancel their health-care plans rather than violate their religious beliefs they’ll incur a hefty annual fine from the same Health-Care law.

Should religious institutions that do not provide contraceptive coverage in their employee medical insurance plans, for ideological reasons, be forced to do so? Can the Federal government force agencies run by religious institutions to provide insurance options that are the antithesis of their belief. It’s not a matter of whether the employee chooses to take the coverage or not. If the employee chooses the coverage the employer will pay.

Will wider access to birth control drugs mean that the people of the United States will do a better job of family planning and reducing unplanned pregnancies? Does the issue go beyond pro-life and pro-choice arguments? Does the mandate violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

We would like to hear from our readers. As mentioned earlier, the issue has nothing to do with the level of care or service the religiously affiliated institutions provide or the leadership of those religions or sects.

Send us your letters commenting on the issue and we will share your opinions by publishing them on this page.

Return to Previous Page