Health Care and Rights of Conscience
In America, those who ethically and morally oppose war are not forced to violate their deeply held beliefs. Our nation has a long-standing tradition of respect for the principles of conscientious objectors.1 In fact, soldiers whose battlefield experiences have led them to oppose war may be honorably discharged from the military or re-classified as a non-combatant.2
If our government is careful not to step on the conscience of those who oppose war, should we not respect the beliefs of those who oppose contraception? Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, private insurance plans must cover the cost of all FDA-approved birth control. This includes contraceptive measures, as well as methods like the IUD, which prevent implantation of the developing embryo.3 Failure to comply with the mandate will result in significant fines. 4
So what happens to the business owner who objects to IUDs? What happens to Catholic institutions? What happens to other persons of faith or persons of conscience who object to birth control on a religious or moral basis? Must they choose between violating their conscience or closing their business to avoid crippling fines? That hardly seems fair.
A narrow religious exemption from the contraception mandate is provided. However, as many have pointed out, this exemption does not apply to many religious organizations.5
It’s not too late to provide for a broader conscientious objection to the contraception mandate. But it will take the voices of concerned citizens to ensure that their rights of conscience are protected.
1 Conscientious Objector. The Free Dictionary. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Conscientious+objectors
2Conscientious Objection Fact Sheet. http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-process
3Obamacare Conscience Issues Put Catholic Health Care at Risk http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/15/obamacare-conscience-issues-put-catholic-health-care-at-risk/
4 Obamacare Contraception Mandate Takes Effect http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/01/obamacare-contraception-mandate-takes-effect/
5Obamacare, Religion, and the Court http://www.american.com/archive/2012/march/obamacare-religion-and-the-court
Joseph wrote,
Dr. Kuruvilla,
Thank you for beginning a conversation about this issue at Cedarville; it is certainly a topic that merits our consideration. I recognize that this post was not intended to be comprehensive, and I would appreciate your opinion on other aspects of this topic.
Regarding the analogy between contraceptive coverage and military participation, citizens who oppose war must pay taxes, some of which may go to the military, just as business owners who oppose certain forms of contraception must pay for health coverage, some of which may now go toward contraception. Hence, it seems that the analogy may be flawed. However, the validity of the argument does not necessarily depend on the validity of the analogy, so it may be more constructive to focus exclusively on contraception apart from the analogy.
First, most would probably agree that the government should generally not require individuals to violate their consciences. However, it seems that the government may sometimes be justified in requiring individuals to violate their consciences if there is a compelling public interest. So, in the case of contraceptive coverage, is such a compelling public interest present?
Second, how far removed must an individual or institution be from an objectionable activity in order to avoid falling under the “violation of conscience” critique? For example, it seems reasonable to assert that employers who are opposed to certain forms of contraception would be violating their consciences if they were required to hand out these forms of contraception to their employees. However, it seems unreasonable to assert that the same employers would be violating their consciences if their employees spent part of their paychecks on contraception. So where exactly should the line be drawn?
Thank you once again for your consideration of this issue.
Link | October 25th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Heather Kuruvilla wrote,
Joseph,
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. Once again, I’m reminded how inadequate a 4-paragraph blog can be when addressing complex ethical issues. As you probably guessed, I am writing them to stimulate thought. Thanks for letting me know you’re thinking!
I agree that many employers are indirectly paying for all kinds of things they deem unethical, since employees may go out and use their paychecks as they see fit. I would not want to encroach upon the employees’ freedom to go out and purchase contraception or an iPAD or whatever their heart desires. The question here is whether the employer should be compelled to buy something for their employees when it violates the employer’s conscience. I would argue that in this case, there is no “compelling public interest” at stake, since that employee is still free to go out into the open market and purchase the product for himself or herself.
Where this gets even more tricky, though, is “intended use”. Dual-hormone birth-control pills, for example, are used to treat all sorts of things (even acne!) that have nothing to do with contraception. Does that mean we should force insurance companies to cover “the pill”, regardless of conscience issues, because they have other uses? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a well-defined answer for that. I personally do not find dual hormone birth control pills to be morally objectionable, so from a purely ethical standpoint, I’m fine with covering them. But someone who believes all birth control is wrong is going to have a different view.
Link | October 29th, 2012 at 1:36 pm