When the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated decision on the Hobby Lobby abortifacient contraceptives case back at the end of June, I thought back to the end of my first semester of senior year at ValpU. I was to write an essay, worth 50% of my grade, analyzing some issue pertaining to themes in my Justice seminar class in Christ College.
On my mind as a particularly good topic for this essay was the hot-button news item of the numerous lawsuits filed against the Department of Health and Human Services on account of the HHS mandate requiring faith-based employers to cover contraceptives in the healthcare plans for their employees, particularly those contraceptives that cause abortions.
As I thought over how I would present my arguments regarding this case, I remembered something I once read in The Governor, the book Rod Blagojevich wrote as his defense in the months-long period between his arrest/removal from the Illinois governor's office, and his first trial for corruption charges. He writes that healthcare really is a matter of life and death, because if a person can't get coverage for healthcare procedures for conditions, especially serious ones, it could mean death. That was why he advocated so strongly for increased healthcare coverage for Illinoisans during his tenure as governor.
That statement really gave me pause when I read it. It wasn't so much that I agreed with it per se, but it was a striking way to frame the idea of healthcare coverage.
It's true that there are many people who lack access to healthcare coverage, and can't get the treatments they need for all kinds of conditions, even serious ones. So it's undeniably clear we need a way to help those who can't get coverage for treatment, which can be a matter of life and death.
But the Affordable Care Act has proven itself to be an unsuitable solution to this grave problem, and the HHS mandate is one example of how problematic the healthcare law is in regards to the government's control over providing coverage.
In an effort to make available abortion-inducing contraceptive coverage, the government is forcing people of Christian faith to go against their principles of faith, which makes abortion an act of murder, thereby making the coverage of these contraceptives complicit with inducing the death of an unborn human person.
So at stake here is the rights of healthcare versus religious freedom, the latter of which is steeped into our existence as the United States.
Way back at the start of this country, the Founding Fathers were aware of the problems caused when government meddled with religion. The government would officially recognize one religion, and could require attendance at officially-sanctioned churches, or citizens could face fines. Other religious groups that were not of the official state church could have their activities banned or strictly monitored. This is why the Foudning Fathers wanted there to be a separation of church and state, so that religion could be a matter left to the conscience of individuals, not something that government dictated for them.
Unfortunately, many misinterpret this idea of the separation of church and state to mean that people in government can't make any religious expressions, and even furthermore, that people can't make religious expressions out in public at all.
And now, the government is encroaching on religious liberty to enforce this mandate. People are no longer allowed to abide by their deeply-held beliefs as they are being forced to acknowledge the right to have healthcare, and in this case, the right to contraceptives and abortions.
Quite frankly, the idea of reproductive health rights is really nothing more than a fabrication designed to promote the left-leaning agenda of people who want totally unrestricted abortions to suit their own desires. So really, a newly-fabricated rights are bullying long-held religious freedom. The author the Chicago Catholic Examiner column, William Leubscher, puts it well in this column he wrote about the decision. His words toward the end about contraceptives are well put, because they are ultimately not about treating health conditions, but more involved in one's personal lifestyle choices, thereby making the government's actions regarding them preposterous.
And there's still more action that must be taken to preserve religious freedom. The thing about this decision is that it's based more on a technicality, that the government can go through other means to provide coverage for abortifacient contraceptives. So the preservation of the religious liberty of those who are against abortion and abortion-causing agents is still going to need further protection. The fight still goes on, and we pray that religious liberty prevails in the court cases that remain and in the battle in society at large.
P.S. Here are some other good articles offering commentary on the decision:
This one critiques the reactions on the left: http://liveactionnews.org/disappointment-or-deceit-analyzing-reactions-to-the-hobby-lobby-decision/
In regards to this article, when I watched the NBC Nightly News report on the decision at the top of the broadcast the day it was announced, I was intrigued by the use of the phrase "controversial ruling". Last year, when the Supreme Court made a ruling on provisions in DOMA, the word "controversial" was not used, even though many opposed it--opposition which didn't get much airtime in the reporting. Perhaps "controversial" refers to how the people in the liberal mainstream media didn't like the outcome in the Hobby Lobby decision.
This one further addresses the matter of reproductive health rights: http://liveactionnews.org/theres-no-right-to-sex-in-the-constitution/
No comments:
Post a Comment