Religious Liberty, Health Care, and Reproductive Rights
It is amazing to me that some who wish to “outlaw” abortion in this country are also against birth control which, when used properly, limits the situations in which a woman, a man, or a couple, married or in some other form of relationship, would make a decision to end a pregnancy. My companion and I are “childless by choice” or what is now called, “child-free.” Some persons wonder why two people would wed if they were not intending to start a family or at some point had children of their own. Is having kids the only reason for stable life long relationships? Is having kids the goal of marriage? It is clearly an expectation that too few don’t pause and think about their lifestyle choices, their finances, and their goals within the relationship. It is clearly an expectation that too many simply fulfill without thought. My companion has had to pay extra, a higher premium, to have an insurance policy that covers birth control and other reproductive services not covered by the Catholic based non-profit system that dominates our metro area’s insurance and health care options. I’m grateful that the Catholic hierarchy sees health care as a basic human right and know that it grows out of their commitment to a social gospel, but being able to socially engineer a community based on a theological commitment that others may not share, whether choices exists or not, is actually limiting my practice of religion and self determination. For people who feel like they have lost some “freedom” during President Obama’s term, I rarely hear them define or be specific about how their freedom has been diminished. My companion’s health care choices and costs are increased and her freedom, as well as my own, is diminished, as is thousands of others who are not Catholic or Christian, so that the local health care monopoly can project its religious liberty and worldview on the population. For me, it creates harm in a vocation whose ethic is centered in, “do no harm.”
Here is an interesting article from The Christian Century about a recent court case where the judge ruled against a plaintiff suing the government over the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The plaintiff argued that his religious freedom was being limited by the government which is a similar argument of the US Catholic bishops and Catholic hospitals and insurance providers are arguing. Here is the opening paragraph of the Christian Century article.
Liberty “a shield, not a sword”
by David Heim | Oct 12, 2012A federal judge in Eastern Missouri has upheld the government mandate that insurance policies cover birth control. Judge Carol E. Jackson ruled that the mandate is not a violation of religious liberty. Religious freedom is “a shield, not a sword,” she said, and religious liberty claims cannot be used as a “means to force one’s religious practices upon others.” Her argument closely aligns with points that the Century made some months ago in an editorial and that I tried to make in a blog post.