Separation of Church and State: What Does this Really Mean Today?

The recently passed HHS mandate requiring some (not all) Catholic institutions to cover their employees’ contraceptive costs as part of their health care package has brought under scrutiny a few fundamental pillars of American democracy and governance: separation of church and state; protection of the First Amendment; and equal access to health care services for all Americans. As I understand it, the main argument against this decision revolves around this second point about protecting religious freedoms. Critics have (deceivingly) framed the mandate as a rule that forces Catholics to violate their religious convictions and consciences on the issue of contraception and abortion. There are so many ways to attack this claim that I barely know where to begin.

First, I’ll just cite an important statistic: according to the NYT, 55% of Americans and 58% of Catholic Americans agree that employers at Catholic institutions should offer their employees health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. I have seen different variations of these numbers but the fact that Catholics are more supportive of the HHS mandate than the general public has remained consistent in every study and article I’ve read.

Second, I would like to highlight a key aspect of the mandate that most opponents prefer to ignore in hopes of strengthening their argument. According to the HHS rule, Catholic parishes or institutions focused on the preaching and/or teaching of the Catholic faith would be exempt from this mandate; it is only those institutions that provide public services (mainly hospitals and universities) that would be affected by the mandate. This is an important distinction to be made. Everyone has the freedom to choose his or her faith, but not everyone has the luxury to be picky when it comes to employment. If the opponents of this mandate truly believe that every single employee at a Catholic university or hospital is a devout Catholic, they’re out of their minds. In this job market, people will take work wherever they can find it. If you live in a small or medium-sized town with only one major university or hospital, that’s where you’re going to look for work. An administrative assistant or a janitor earning an hourly wage at a university or hospital should not be denied equal access to health care services just because her place of employment so happens to be affiliated with the Catholic Church. Critics of the HHS mandate are painting the picture of a conservative, Catholic family, dressed head to toe in their Sunday best, having condoms thrown at them and birth control pills shoved down their throats while receiving Communion. This is obviously far, far from the truth.

In addition to framing the mandate and the Obama administration, generally, as morally corrupt and religiously offensive, the Right has also deployed its favorite one-liner about “big government” to criticize the HHS rule. According to these conservative critics, the White House is (and I quote) “galloping” over the line between church and state in this decision. Going back to my exaggerated example of priests shoving BC down parishioners’ throats, the opponents of this mandate are acting as though the government is taking away free will in some fundamental way, when all it’s really doing is its job (evening the playing field for Americans by providing equal access to imperative health services). If you are a devout Catholic who is morally opposed to abortion, contraception, or any activity that prohibits child birth, then it is your inalienable right as a human being to not get an abortion and not use birth control yourself. [Likewise, if you are opposed to gay marriage, it is your right not to marry someone of the same sex.] But your personal moral judgment is not a reason to deny others the right to use these services. Just as the government has no right to force women to use birth control, your personal beliefs have no right to force them not to. Conservatives need to get past this notion of liberalism scorching the moral and religious foundations of this country, this idea that a gay couple getting married someone undermines their own marriage, or that a rape victim getting an abortion threatens the fabric of society or family-life. This is the 21^st century: women have premarital sex; they use birth control and get abortions. Atheists do this; Jews do this; Catholics do this. If conservatives want to really think about what’s ruining this country, they ought to look no further than the growing income disparity and endless cycle of war, to name a few.

The last point I’ll make is in defense of President Obama and his administration. First, I would like to point out that Vice President Biden, Bill Daley, and other (males) close to Obama warned him of the potential for backlash on this. It was HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Obama’s advisor and long-time friend Valerie Jarrett (along with a number of female senators) who led the charge. I see this as a major thumbs-up for Obama’s ultimate decision to support the mandate. For so long, I have been disgusted that it has always been men making the decisions about women’s right to choose. The fact that this mandate (which, really, only affects women) was led by women only validates its necessity. Additionally, I would like to counter what many political pundits are saying about the mandate’s implications for Obama in the 2012 election. Everyone seems to agree that approving this mandate was a bad political move for Obama because it threatens his support from Catholic voters, many of whom are independent or live in battleground states, like Pennsylvania. Whether or not this will prove to be the case (and I think it won’t), I think it says a lot about Obama as a leader that he made a controversial decision like this knowing full well what the negative political implications could be. We elect Presidents to make decisions on behalf of the best interests of the American public; we do not elect Presidents to make decisions that are guaranteed to get them reelected. Joe Biden, who some (on Morning Joe) have called one of the best political minds in the country, warned Obama that this could bode poorly for him, politically. But Obama went ahead with it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Isn’t that kind of decision-making and leadership something we want from our Commander in Chief? I know it’s something I want. And if others don’t, they can go ahead and vote for Mitt Romney, who will never stand up for what he believes is best for the American people, but will instead be constantly swayed by whatever forces come his way.   

Obama Appearing More Presidential Against a Field of Incompetents and an Obstructionist Congress

This week, with the Republican primaries finally underway, the contrast between President Obama and the GOP field has become even more stark. First, I would just like to emphasize how extremely supportive I am of Obama's foreign policy strategy to scale back the military (making two simultaneous wars impossible) and refocus its efforts in the Asia Pacific region. For a young Senator from Illinois with very little foreign policy experience, Obama has really been on a roll. 

Second, and what this blog will focus on, is Obama's controversial appointment of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Given the history of past presidential appointments occurring during a Senate recess and the uncompromising, childish obstructionism that the Republican Congress has practiced during the past several months, it is unbelievable (and disgusting, frustrating, illogical... pick an adjective) how much criticism this decision has already received. I'm not feeling very creative today, so I will simply list all of the issues I have with Obama's critics:

1. Turning a Blind Eye to History: President Clinton made 140 appointments during recess; George W. Bush made 171; Obama has made 28. The numbers speak for themselves.

2. The GOP's Overly-Pliant Definition of "In Session": As I understand it, the Constitution says that recess is a time when Congress is not working. Working in D.C., I can assure you that no work has taken place on the Hill since before the holidays. This whole pro forma caveat, which allows the Senate to technically be "in session" without getting any business done is a joke. Just because one or two Senators read the newspaper in a hearing room for 30 minutes a day does not mean they are in session, ready to work and vote. Feigning offense at Obama's appointment is absolutely ridiculous when most Senators, if they're even in town, are probably rolling into the office at 10am, doing some catch-up on Espn.com, and going home at 5. If the Senate wants to be recognized as being in session, maybe they should actually attempt to get something done, such as... oh, I don't know... have an up-or-down vote on the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - like a certain President repeatedly asked for? Just a thought. 

3. Importance of this Appointment: Republican politicians consistently peg Obama as a Wall Street supporter and blame Democrats for supporting the bank bailout, yet they refused to vote on this important appointment. The Republicans agree that Cordray is qualified and largely bipartisan; they say it's not him they're against. They oppose the entire agency, which is intended to protect consumers against big banks. If this isn't the absolute epitome of hypocrisy, I really don't know what is. 

4. Blame Yourselves, Republicans: Yes, it was a bold (and perhaps unconstitutional) move, but the Republican Congress can blame no one but themselves for the way Obama acted - and will likely continue to act. I recently read an article supporting Pa's opinion that the Republican party's unique hatred of Obama is fundamentally rooted in race. I'm still not sure I buy into that assumption, but the article did provide a disturbing laundry list of ways that this Republican Congress has disrespected Obama and the Office of the Presidency that are historically unmatched - and unthinkable. I'm sure everyone remembers Rep. Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" during Obama's address to Congress some time ago. There's also John Boehner's rejection of Obama's request to speak at a joint session of Congress (which, I learned, was the first such denial in the country's history). And last, but certainly not least, is the entire debt/tax debacle that took place over the holidays. Republicans are calling Obama's Cordray appointment unconstitutional and claiming that he does not respect the "separate but equal" powers of the branches of government. But how many times has the Republican Congress blatantly disrespected the President? Mitch McConnell said, "Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power." Yes, that's true. Separation of power is important, and I am positive that ex-con law professor Obama agrees. But maybe the Republican party should consider taking their responsibilities, in general, a little more seriously and showing some respect for their Commander in Chief. I mean, really, what other choice does Obama have but to make decisions in this way?

I am not a blind, unthinking, radical Obama supporter by any means. I have disagreed with his policies and criticized his decisions in the past. In fact, I actually mailed him a letter of dissatisfaction when he decided to extend the Bush era tax cuts. [I actually just re-read it... and it was really harsh. I'm glad I wrote a positive message of approval to whitehouse.gov this morning.] One of the major criticisms I once had of Obama was his reluctance to put up a strong fight. As the Republicans continue to show, Washington politics is often a dirty game. If you want to get things done and follow through on your election promises, you cannot always prioritize reaching across the aisle and making political friends. Sometimes you need to play hard-ball, and I think that is exactly what Obama is starting to do. Regarding the Cordray appointment Obama said, "I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class." This is presidential; this is strong; this is what America and the middle class needs. When put up against boring, wish-washy Romney, religious-zealot Santorum, or slimy Gingrich, Obama's odds of winning reelection are lookin' preeeetty good.