At first glance, the Obama administration’s conscience exception to the Department of Health and Human Services abortifacient and contraceptive mandate is bewildering. The exemption is limited to an organization that "(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” These distinctions are incomprehensible if this exemption is an attempt to protect the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
How could the president possibly believe that organizations which meet these three seemingly arbitrary criteria have a greater right to the free exercise of religion than others? Consider Chabad, a Jewish outreach program, hosting Friday night dinners to reach out to Jews who do not "share its religious tenets." Is a Chabad synagogue less religious than other Jewish synagogues because they engage in more outreach? Consider the Salvation Army, offering hospitality and kindness to down-on-their-luck individuals regardless of whether they share "its religious tenets.” Is the Salvation Army irreligious because they seek to feed the hungry as much as they seek the “inculcation of religious values?” Would they be any more religious if they stopped to make sure that a hungry man shared their faith before offering him a meal? Even some volunteers who help prepare and serve food at a religiously run shelter may not "share its religious tenets." Are we to seriously believe that this makes "Miriam's Kitchen," "Loaves and Fishes," or similar church-run efforts not "religious?"
Read more: http://www.american.com/archive/2012/march/obamacare-religion-and-the-court
How could the president possibly believe that organizations which meet these three seemingly arbitrary criteria have a greater right to the free exercise of religion than others? Consider Chabad, a Jewish outreach program, hosting Friday night dinners to reach out to Jews who do not "share its religious tenets." Is a Chabad synagogue less religious than other Jewish synagogues because they engage in more outreach? Consider the Salvation Army, offering hospitality and kindness to down-on-their-luck individuals regardless of whether they share "its religious tenets.” Is the Salvation Army irreligious because they seek to feed the hungry as much as they seek the “inculcation of religious values?” Would they be any more religious if they stopped to make sure that a hungry man shared their faith before offering him a meal? Even some volunteers who help prepare and serve food at a religiously run shelter may not "share its religious tenets." Are we to seriously believe that this makes "Miriam's Kitchen," "Loaves and Fishes," or similar church-run efforts not "religious?"
No member of the Supreme Court voted to endorse the government’s argument in Hosanna Tabor.The exemption is only understandable if you accept the premise that it was never intended to protect religious objections. If you read the text of this exemption in light of the administration’s arguments in the Hosanna Tabor Supreme Court case, it becomes clear that this exemption was intended to protect a right rooted in the freedom of expression, not the free exercise of religion. Gerard Bradley wrote an excellent piece regarding the connection between Hosanna Tabor and the HHS abortifacient mandate over at National Review.
Read more: http://www.american.com/archive/2012/march/obamacare-religion-and-the-court
No comments:
Post a Comment