Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

The Contraception Controversy: A Comprehensive Reply (1 of 7)

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Legal Restrictions, Contraception, Legal Restrictions

Regions:

United States

Work:

Engaging Policymakers, In Washington D.C.

Type:

News, Story

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

02.27.2012

Engaging Policymakers Legal Restrictions United States News

The Contraception Controversy: A Comprehensive Reply (1 of 7)

Justin Goldberg

Share

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id
 
 
1) Religious liberty and the right of an individual to live according to his or her own religious conscience are supported, not threatened, by this policy.
 
 
 
 
 


The Obama Administration’s recently announced policy to require insurers to cover contraception as women’s preventive health care has prompted many over-heated op-eds, editorials on both sides and even a thoroughly one-sided Congressional hearing. The controversy is unlikely to end anytime soon: pending federal legislation and proposed amendments would massively enlarge the scope of insurers’ and business owners’ ability to restrict any type of insurance benefit on either “moral” or “religious” grounds, undermining the very purpose of insurance.  



Below, we take a closer look at the arguments by opponents of the contraception requirement, unpack the legal issues and public health debate, and respond to many erroneous assertions.



Full Introduction



1) Religious liberty and the right of an individual to live according to his or her own religious conscience are supported, not threatened, by this policy.



At a now-infamous congressional hearing on February 16, the Republican-controlled Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives assembled a predominantly male cast of religious leaders to opine on issues of religious freedom ostensibly threatened by the contraceptive coverage requirement. In framing the topic, Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) strained the limits of credulity by insisting that women’s health and reproductive rights were outside the scope of the hearing.



But contrary to Rep. Issa’s assertions, religious liberty, as it has been recognized by courts in constitutional deliberations, does not mean the liberty of employers to abridge their employees’ religious rights, particularly in public-facing institutions. For that reason, women’s health – and the notion of a private zone of decision-making that protects the rights of workers at public-facing institutions – should have been precisely the question considered by Congress. The issue raised in this debate is not whether religious liberty should be protected, but whose religious liberty the law should protect.



Despite misleading assertions by witnesses at the Issa hearing, in a diverse and pluralistic society governed by democratic laws, religious authority is not an absolute. For example, religious organizations cannot control what employees do with their paychecks even if they are the ones paying the salary. They cannot control who moves in next door, even if the neighbors engage in activities that offend. They cannot discriminate when hiring workers for non-ministerial positions, even within a church. They cannot deface billboards, even if the images are directly contrary to their beliefs.



There are limits, and for this reason, it is essential that one not confuse “a war on [] religion with not always getting everything you want .” Indeed, without such limits, the government’s actions would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by supporting, with government action, a particular religious view.



The flip side of the Establishment Clause is the Free Exercise Clause, which ensures that religious individuals retain the freedom to practice their religion. In resolving these sometimes competing interests, the courts have generally sought to strike a balance between respect for the internal decision-making authority of religious institutions and the democratic values reflected in requirements imposed upon public institutions.



This careful balancing act is structured into our Constitution. Interestingly, as noted in a recent analysis by scholars at the Brookings Institute, the Framers of the Constitution considered – and rejected – specific constitutional protection for conscience rights:



Madison’s original draft of what became the First Amendment would have protected “the full and equal rights of conscience.” By the close of the House debate, the language included protections for both the free exercise of religion and rights of conscience, implying a distinction between them. After moving back and forth between these two formulations, the Senate ultimately selected religious free exercise, which became the language sent to the states for ratification.



So how does the free exercise clause operate in practice? As a first principle, generally applicable laws – even those with an incidental effect on religion – do not violate the First Amendment because they are the sine qua non of governing an ordered society.



In the key constitutional case on the question, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of Native American Church members whose sacramental use of peyote disqualified them for unemployment benefits. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia explained that a neutral law of general applicability that happens to burden one’s religious practice does not violate the Constitution because “[t]he government’s ability…to carry out…aspects of public policy, ‘cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.’” The alternative is to permit every religious objector to “become a law unto himself” – a result which “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”



Other cases make clear the balance of interests when religious institutions – rather than individuals – are involved. Religious organizations, when acting in a religious capacity or deciding matters of internal governance – as is the case with houses of worship – receive considerable deference from the courts. But institutions that voluntarily assume a public role,including those with religious affiliations, are, generally, subject to the same laws as everyone else. Those institutions have chosen to primarily employ members of the general public, to primarily serve the general public, and to assign themselves a mission that is not primarily religious in purpose or goal.



Because we do not go to a hospital for a sermon, but rather for medical care, and because the employees of that hospital are there for work, and not worship, the test is reasonable. The issue is one of fairness: public-facing institutions must follow the law and abide by the same rules as everyone else with regard to their workers’ rights and consciences.



The fact that a religious conviction leads adherents to perform acts of public service, such as founding hospitals or soup kitchens, does not mean that the hospital or kitchen itself is any more exempt from generally applicable regulations than a hospital or soup kitchen founded by atheists. Such a rule would unfairly advantage religious institutions over nonreligious institutions, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Instead, where a religious institution decides – for whatever reason – to provide a public service, it is subject to the same rules that govern nonreligious public-service providers. The alternative would mean that food-safety laws would not apply to kosher butchers, that child-safety laws would not apply to church-affiliated daycare, and that building codes wouldn’t apply to the construction of churches and mosques. In short, allowing an institution’s motivation to subject it to a lesser set of regulations is a recipe for chaos.



Finally, it should be noted that the objection of some religious institutions to the contraceptive-coverage rule is nothing new. Indeed, religious institutions serving the public have long decried as a violation of religious liberty a host of laws designed to promote gender and racial equality. In the 1960s, for example, some religious groups attacked enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations. And in the 1980s, Bob Jones University – which opposed interracial dating – unsuccessfully sought an exemption from the law prohibiting tax-exempt schools from engaging in racial discrimination. Other religiously affiliated institutions sought to give special benefits to male employees on the grounds of a supposed Biblical command that men be the heads of households.



Religious institutions’ current opposition to extending contraceptive coverage to women is, sadly, in line with these previous, now-discredited, positions. The policy is a remedy for discriminatory practices that both exclude women’s health care from coverage and increase costs for services that only women need.



2) Both the original policy and the accommodation are legally and constitutionally sound.



3) The Administration’s policy accommodation fairly balances the interests of employers and employees and is based on the economic realities of the insurance marketplace.



4) Birth control coverage is a mainstream and commonsense aspect of preventive care for women.



5) Emergency contraception is essential to women’s health and is not an “abortion drug.”



6) Sterilization is a common form of birth control. Denying access, especially when it is medically recommended, can have devastating consequences.



7) Conclusion



Return to Index



 
 
 
 
 
 

Related Posts

Testimony of the Center for Reproductive Rights on the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson Proposal

The Center for Reproductive Rights respectfully submits the following testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance in strong opposition...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions, Other Barriers, Contraception, Legal Restrictions, Funding for Reproductive Healthcare, Other Financial Barriers, Right to Care, Maternal Health,United States,Engaging Policymakers

June Medical Services v. Gee: Petition for Attorney’s Fees

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts, Engaging Policymakers, In the States (USA)

June Medical Services v. Gee: Notice of Appeal

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts, Engaging Policymakers, In the States (USA)

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Gift Acceptance Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2024)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Better Business Bureau Charity Watch Top Rated Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up