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 21st 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.
