Obama, Contraception and the Catholic Church

In the last week or so one of the big political stories in the United States was the criticism the Obama administration received from the Republicans and others on the right for a new policy compelling insurance plans, including those offered by religious-affiliated organizations like hospitals, universities and charities, to provide women with coverage for birth control. The Catholic church protested because of its long-standing opposition to contraception, and many Republicans and other right-wing critics piled on, accusing the administration of attacking religious freedom. Originally the rule called for employers themselves to pay for such coverage, but because of the complaints, it was revised so that insurers would be required to pay instead. This hasn't satisfied many critics, because some institutions offer also act as insurers themselves, and even where they don't opponents say religious organizations will be paying indirectly for something they oppose.

Let's pretend for a minute that there was a university out there that was affiliated with some religion that believed that any kind of medical assistance was a sin, because sickness was sent by God (beliefs of this sort, while unusual, are actually not unknown in America). Would the government then be violating religious freedom by requiring that the university offer any kind of health coverage at all? To take an example that is less similar to the case in question, is the government violating religious freedom by banning polygamy, even among religions that encourage it? Or for more extreme example, what if a religion calls for something like the brutal female circumcision practiced in some parts of Africa, or for regular human sacrifice? (Note that I am by no means equating polygamy with the latter things; I think a good argument can be made for legalizing all marriage arrangements among consenting adults.) I think that most Americans, including this rule's critics, would be in favor of restricting some religious practices on the grounds that they are harmful to society as a whole (whether this is true or not). On the other hand, freedom of religion is one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded (despite the inaccurate assertions of some that the founders intended it to be a "Judeo-Christian nation"). So is this particular rule a necessary restriction or a violation of the basic principle?

I have long regarded the Catholic Church's views on contraception to be ridiculously backward, more in line with the geocentric view of the universe it clung to in the time of Galileo than with a doctrine that belongs in the 21st century. Not only is the Catholic position on birth control harmful to Catholics, particularly Catholic women, but in a world with seven billion people and counting, it is harmful to the entire human race and even to many other forms of life on Earth that are having their habitats squeezed out of existence by the ravening hordes of humanity. In the long term, probably the most important thing humanity has to do to create a sustainable future is to control its population. If the Catholic Church persists in its refusal to recognize this by changing its doctrine, it is my profound wish that either the vast majority of Catholics will start to ignore the church's teachings on this issue (as many do already) or that its membership will wither away to a tiny fraction of what it is today. Since I consider the Catholic position on contraception to be about as defensible as, say, Islamic fundamentalist efforts to prevent even non-Muslims from creating images of Mohammed (which is to say not at all), it should come as no surprise that I have little sympathy with Catholic complaints about being forced to provide birth control coverage to mostly non-Catholic employees at institutions like hospitals and universities, which are primarily secular in function anyway. The rule does not affect churches or other organizations that are primarily religious in function, so it does not restrict religious freedom. On the contrary, it simply helps ensure that one of the most basic preventative health measures around is available to all women who need it.

The Republican attacks on Obama over this issue on the grounds of religious freedom are also incredibly hypocritical. If it was an Islamic school or charity that was being required to provide some service that they felt violated their religion I wonder whether Newt Gingrich, for instance, would be leaping to their defense. Judging from his past rhetoric, I think it's safe to say that the answer is no, and the same is true of many if not most of his fellow Republican leaders. Their defense of "religious freedom" is completely opportunistic and highly selective. It is regrettable that the Obama administration has already felt the need to compromise with the backward thinking that the Catholic Church and its GOP allies represent on this issue. We can only hope that they have the backbone to resist any further relaxation of the minimal requirements that this new rule puts in place.