Saturday, March 3, 2012

Laws Of General Applicability, Or Why The Church Was All Wet on Contraception

For the past month, debate has raged about insurance coverage for birth control, whether organizations that have a religious objection to covering birth control must nevertheless include coverage in their medical plans and now, more generally, whether employers that have religious or moral objections to birth control can refuse to provide such coverage.  The discourse has grown ugly, with mud being slung at women who have the temerity to defend the need for birth control coverage, pious politicians wrapping themselves deeply in the cloak of the First Amendment and the media, by and large, sitting back with its bag of popcorn, watching the food fight while generating days of cable news and commentary coverage on both sides of the issue.  

And all of this sturm und drang would be well and good had this question not been resolved more than 20 years ago by the Supreme Court.  In 1990, the Court granted certiorari on a case captioned Employment Division v. Smith.  In that case, the Court considered the question of whether the State of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to the defendant, a Native American who utilized the hallucinogenic peyote as a religious, sacramental rite and was fired from his job because of his ingestion of the substance, which was illegal under state and federal law.  

Smith and his co-defendant challenged the determination of their ineligibility for unemployment, arguing that their use of peyote was protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  Although they were successful in the lower courts, Smith and his co-complainant lost in the Supreme Court in a decision written by the noted left wing radical and judicial activist, Antonin Scalia. 

Yes, that Justice Scalia.  The same one who issued a concurrence in a case in 2005 that is likely to form the foundation for upholding "Obamacare."  (See, http://scarylawyerguy.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-what-expansive-commerce-clause-you.html).  In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in Oregon's favor and Justice Scalia's core rationale was straight forward - that a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by one's religion does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.  Justice Scalia cited examples that included the prohibition on polygamy (U.S. v. Reynolds), the requirement that Amish employers collect and pay Social Security taxes even though the Amish faith rejects participation in government programs (U.S. v. Lee), and "Sunday closing laws" that affected those who celebrate the Sabbath on days other than Sunday as laws that were all upheld against similar Free Exercise challenges. 

As Justice Scalia noted, if the Court permitted people to challenge generally applicable laws based on religious belief, the "tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief." In other words, pacifists cannot challenge the appropriation of tax dollars for war purposes any more than Mormons can assert they are free to engage in multiple marriages.  Only when the free exercise of religion is tied to another constitutionally protected right will the Court invalidate that law.  So, where "a licensing system for religious and charitable solicitations under which the administrator had discretion to deny a license to any cause he deemed nonreligious" was challenged, it was struck down because it ran afoul of both the Free Exercise Clause and the right to a free press (Murdock v. Pennsylvania).

So what does all of this have to do with the recent firestorm around requiring religious employers (primarily those affiliated with the Catholic Church) to cover birth control as part of their health plans?  A few things, actually.  First, and most importantly, the idea that this requirement is unconstitutional is complete and utter bullshit.  No matter how much Republicans fulminate on the House or Senate floor about this unprecedented affront to religion, which itself ignored the fact that more than 20 states had similar requirements, 8 of which did not include the so-called "religious exemption" the original, pre-Obama "compromise" in their regulations, the simple fact is that had a religious organization challenged the Obama Administration in court, that group would have lost even if the Administration had not chosen to include the religious exemption at all because the requirement that birth control be covered in insurance plans was applied neutrally and did not otherwise impact other protected constitutional rights as per Smith.  

Need further proof?  None other than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in its decision striking down the individual mandate in Florida v. HHS found that "Congress has legislated expansively and constitutionally in the fields of insurance and health care" citing laws such as HIPAA (patient privacy protection and insurance portability), COBRA (allowing former employees to maintain coverage through their former employers at a premium), ERISA, and Medicare.  In upholding other portions of the Affordable Care Act, the Court noted that "It is clear that Congress has enacted comprehensive legislation regarding health insurance and health care. The Act is another such example."  So even a conservative court that has struck down the individual mandate has also acknowledged that Congress has the authority to pass laws that include regulatory authority that impacts medical insurance coverage.  

And why does this all matter?  Because our country is not a theocracy that allows one religious sect to elevate its interests over others simply because they have a loud microphone and a lot of adherents.  The slippery slope we would fall down if anytime a religious organization objected to a law or regulation because it offended its religious tenets would lead to absurd results where Rastafarians would be free to smoke marijuana, Quakers could withhold their tax dollars to fight wars and Mormons could wed multiple partners.  While Republicans are furiously re-framing this issue as another example of government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, God-fearing Americans, this is a tempest in a teapot over something that was on the books in the majority of states in our nation before the proposed federal regulation and even so, it was well within the government's power to require this coverage.  That the President was willing to provide the accommodation he did was unnecessary, but yet another example of his attempt to meet his foes halfway, something, they of course, will never accept.

16 comments:

  1. Very well written, thank you.
    Any chance of us getting you in front of a tv camera to explain this to the majority of the American public?
    It would be well worth it just to hear your Scalia line over the airwaves!

    Keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  2. The religions all have the right and freedom not to be an employer. But, of course buying and running hospitals is a lucrative venture for the Catholic business entity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hospitals are clearly Big-Business, typically monopoly businesses, receiving governmental subsidies, favorable tax, and regulatory status. Unless limited to their own members, when they sell services to the public and hire non-member employees, Hospitals should be subject to laws and regulation like any other similar institution or industry. Hospitals as commercial business have nothing to do with practice of religious belief, for their customers or employees. This should be obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The catholic church needs to shut the hell up, and remember that they are an organization that defends and harbors the countless pedophiles within their ranks. Perhaps they may consider dealing with their own internal issues before meddling in everyone else's.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi guys - thanks for the comments, but please refrain from the ad hominem attacks, regardless of your view of the "Church" (and mine is not favorable), I like to keep things (generally) on the policy tip. As for the comment of why I am not on TV, trust me, I have a face for radio. Thanks for the feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks -- I was just explaining this to someone the other day about neutrality and general applicability, and they thought I was making it up. You sometimes get some random blowhard in an argument and they think that their interpretation of the First Amendment is somehow binding, notwithstanding acres of case law. Now I have a nice link. Lawyer on, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Dr. Pablito, I am glad you enjoyed the column.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The discussion is continuing to grow unattractive, with mud being thrown at females who have the temerity to protect the need for delivery control method coverage.

    motorcycle accident milwaukee

    ReplyDelete
  9. Awfully good explanation of the law in this sphere, and I immediately bookmarked your blog. (I practice law.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have read many articles about lawyers but i really found this article very unique and interesting...This articles shares some of the amazing facts for the lawyer..I really found this post very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Choosing the right lawyer to represent you in your case is a decisive factor in whether you will succeed or not. As may be expected, there are various types of lawyers specializing in different areas, so choosing the right lawyer will mean greater efficiency and competence. A strong defense is much more likely when the lawyer you choose already has expertise in the defense of the crime you're accused of.


    business attorney cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you guys are into scary / horror and zombie games, check this out http://flashshed.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello! Thank you so much for sharing some information about lawyers. You have such a very interesting and informative page. I am so glad to visit your page and get some additional knowledge from your site. I will be looking forward to visit your page again and for your other posts as well. Keep on writing stuff like this.
    Arguing a client's case before a judge or jury in a court of law is the traditional province of the barrister in England, and of advocates in some civil law jurisdictions. However, the boundary between barristers and solicitors has evolved. In England today, the barrister monopoly covers only appellate courts, and barristers must compete directly with solicitors in many trial courts. In countries like the United States that have fused legal professions, there are trial lawyers who specialize in trying cases in court, but trial lawyers do not have a de jure monopoly like barristers. In some countries, litigants have the option of arguing pro se, or on their own behalf. It is common for litigants to appear unrepresented before certain courts like small claims courts; indeed, many such courts do not allow lawyers to speak for their clients, in an effort to save money for all participants in a small case. In other countries, like Venezuela, no one may appear before a judge unless represented by a lawyer. The advantage of the latter regime is that lawyers are familiar with the court's customs and procedures, and make the legal system more efficient for all involved. Unrepresented parties often damage their own credibility or slow the court down as a result of their inexperience.
    We take pride in developing strong relationships with our clients through frequent contact, returning every phone call and answering every piece of correspondence the same day.

    Lawyer Lynn MA

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete