The Edmond Sun

Opinion

March 19, 2014

Obamacare and religious rights in a for-profit world

Los Angeles — Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate — the requirement that employers provide employee health insurance that covers contraception — impermissibly infringes on the religious liberty of religiously motivated corporations. The legal battles over the mandate have been legion; more than 300 plaintiffs have field more than 90 cases across the country, all contending that providing health coverage for contraception would require them to violate their faith.

For its part, the Obama administration has recognized the imposition such a law poses on many religious — and, in particular, Christian — believers. So it crafted a religious employer exception aimed at exempting churches and religious schools from complying with the mandate. However, the exception does not apply to religiously motivated employers if they operate for a profit, such as the three employers in the cases before the high court

In defending the for-profit limitation on the exception, the government has advanced a troubling argument — tantamount to a theological claim — about what types of entities practice religion. Indeed, on a number of occasions, the government has claimed that a for-profit enterprise or employer cannot be granted religious liberties because it “by definition does not exercise religion.” Those exact words are in a lower-court motion related to Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, now before the high court.

This opposition of profit and religion — the claim, essentially, that religion ends where business begins — is deeply misguided. It may trace to a particular brand of Christian theology — a dogmatic view of what it means to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” — that relegates religion to the narrow confines of the church and the inner life of the mind. Religion, on this account, simply does not apply in the marketplace or the boardroom.

Such a worldview is completely foreign to other faith traditions, notably the Jewish legal tradition. From the perspective of Jewish law, Judaism’s requirements apply equally in all spheres of human endeavor — from the synagogue to the workplace and everywhere in between. And so the idea that entering the for-profit sphere means, by definition, that religion is being left behind seems bizarre if not downright offensive.

Indeed, it is far from surprising that the U.S. 10th Circuit of Appeals decision now on appeal before the Supreme Court, which granted an injunction against implementing the contraception mandate, highlighted the hypothetical case of a kosher butcher. As the court queried: “Would an incorporated kosher butcher really have no claim to challenge a regulation mandating non-kosher butchering practices?” The idea that kosher practices wouldn’t apply in the for-profit sector is as bewildering as it is incoherent.

Now there are other reasons — reasons that don’t make claims about the nature of religion — that could justify enforcing the contraception mandate in the cases before the court. For example, the Supreme Court might conclude that the government has a compelling interest — protecting women’s health — that only can be achieved by implementing the contraception mandate. The Supreme Court might also conclude that the relevant constitutional and statutory rules about religious liberty were not meant to cover corporations, as opposed to individuals, at all.

On some occasions, the government has emphasized these parts of its argument. But such arguments also have potential problems. If the mandate and the compelling interest is so important, why exempt anybody? And why not allow corporations to exercise religious rights if we allow them to exercise other constitutional rights? But at least those lines of reasoning do not brazenly declare how people do, and do not, practice religion.

At bottom, the government is neither equipped nor should it be allowed to determine by definition that religion stops at commerce’s door. There are many grounds upon which to decide the deeply divisive questions raised by the contraception mandate. The government’s theology should not be one of them.

MICHAEL A. HELFAND is an associate professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law and associate director of the Diane and Guilford Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

 

1
Text Only
Opinion
  • Is English getting dissed?

    Is the English language being massacred by the young, the linguistically untidy and anyone who uses the Internet? Absolutely.
    Is that anything new? Hardly.
    Many words and expressions in common parlance today would have raised the hackles of language scolds in the not-so-distant past. For evidence, let’s look at some examples from recent newspaper articles.

    July 31, 2014

  • 'Too big to fail' equals 'too eager to borrow'

    Four years ago this month, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, promising that the 848-page financial law would “put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all,” he said. But recently, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a Detroit crowd that “the biggest banks are even bigger than they were when they got too big to fail in 2008.”
    Who’s right?

    July 30, 2014

  • Sheltons travel for better life for family

    Some time around 1865 a mixed-race African American couple, William and Mary Shelton, made their way from Mississippi to east Texas. Nothing is known for certain of their origins in he Magnolia state, or the circumstances under which they began their new lives in Texas.

    July 29, 2014

  • Film critic Turan produces book

    Kenneth Turan, who is the film critic for National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” has written a book “Not to be Missed, Fifty-Four Favorites from a Life Time of Film.” His list of movies span the gamut from the beginnings of filmmaking through the present day.
    There are some surprising omissions on his list. While he includes two films, “A Touch of Evil” and Chimes at Midnight” made by Orson Welles, and one, “The Third Man,” that Welles starred in but did not direct. He did not however, include “Citizen Kane,” that was the first movie Welles made, that is  often cited by both film critics and historians as a favorite film.

    July 28, 2014

  • Logan County’s disputed zone

    Watchers of “Star Trek” may recall the episode from the original series entitled, “Day of the Dove.” In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew are forced by a series of circumstances into a confrontation with the Klingons. The conflict eventually resolves after Kirk realizes that the circumstances have been intentionally designed by an alien force which feeds off negative emotions, especially fear and anger. Kirk and his crew communicate this fact to the Klingons and the conflict subsides. No longer feeding upon confrontation, the alien force is weakened and successfully driven away.

    July 28, 2014

  • Russell leads in Sun poll

    Polling results of an unscientific poll at www.edmondsun.com show that Steve Russell, GOP candidate for the 5th District congressional seat, is in the lead with 57 percent of the vote ahead of the Aug. 26 runoff election. Thirty readers participated in the online poll.

    July 28, 2014

  • Healthier and Wealthier? Not in Oklahoma

    Increased copays, decreased coverage, diminished health care access, reduced provider budgets and increased frustration are all the outcomes of the Legislature’s 2014 health care funding decisions. Unlike some years in the past when a languishing state economy forced legislators into making cuts, the undesirable outcomes this year could easily have been avoided.

    July 26, 2014

  • Medicaid reform a necessity

    Historically, education spending by the state of Oklahoma has been the largest budget item. This is no longer the case. In recent years, the state of Oklahoma spends more on Medicaid (operated by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority) than common education and higher education combined, according to the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

    July 25, 2014

  • Remembering lessons from 1974

    This week marks the 40th anniversary of an important milestone in America’s constitutional history. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court voted 8-0 to order the Nixon White House to turn over audiotapes that would prove the president and his close aides were guilty of criminal violations. This ruling established with crystal clarity that the executive branch could not hide behind the shield of executive privilege to protect itself from the consequences of illegal behavior. It was a triumph for the continued vitality of our constitutional form of government.

    July 25, 2014

  • RedBlueAmerica: Is parenting being criminalized in America?

    Debra Harrell was arrested recently after the McDonald’s employee let her daughter spend the day playing in a nearby park while she worked her shift. The South Carolina woman says her daughter had a cell phone in case of danger, and critics say that children once were given the independence to spend a few unsupervised hours in a park.
    Is it a crime to parent “free-range” kids? Does Harrell deserve her problems? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.

    July 24, 2014

Poll

The runoff race for the 5th District congressional seat is set for Aug. 26. If the voting were today, which candidate would you support?

Al McAffrey
Tom Guild
Undecided
     View Results