Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won’t find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.
Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of “Obamacare” will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.
One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.” That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees’ health care, “preventive services,” including “morning-after” pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby’s appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to “...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act.” (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby’s appeals continue.
The core issue as I see it — and there are others — is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes “legitimate” religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.
Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.
The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.
Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the “body” of Jesus Christ, “which is the church.” By this, he means the “body of believers” in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that’s the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.
The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.
In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would “dwell” in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:33)
That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, “I am going to church,” it is an impossibility because they can’t go to themselves.
The administration’s efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.
That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.
Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com; (c) 2013 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.



Comments (17)
Add commentAnti-birth control Catholics and "evangelicals"
shouldn't define "church" for anyone else, either. In fact, opt out -- "just say no" to the government money and what comes with it. Gov't isn't intruding here at all. This comment says it well:
" . . . this is the exact opposite of government intrusion. The "new rules say you can deny your employees coverage, if that is what you believe in, but you can’t have government money if you do so. In case you missed that-
CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS CAN PROVIDE/NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT (NOT TAKE FEDERAL MONEY) IF THEY DO.
Do you realize how insane it is to claim government interference because the government won’t GIVE you money to force your beliefs on other people? Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to make your employees practice your own religious beliefs? Where in the Constitution does it say we, the people have to give religious groups money to support/deny the things they believe in?"
Eighty-two percent of Catholics say birth control is "morally acceptable", and 98% of Catholic women have practiced birth control at some point. Maybe the men who run the Catholic church need to do a better job of lobbying their own flock before bringing their show on the road? http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/23/489006/82-percent-of-catholic...
Also, if you won't support birth control, don't want anyone to ever have an abortion, but also lobby to eviscerate programs that help babies stay fed and get a good start in life, what kind of message are you really sending here?
Just buy
your own birth control, Bubba.
Bubba,
It sounds like the Catholic Church has its own problems with the reality of contraception and expects the government to help them out. Hmm...
Actually, Purposed
Hormonal birth control pills are used for medical problems also.
They aid in shrinking and controlling ovarian and uterine cysts and tumors.
They have many other medical uses besides prevention of pregnancy. Read and learn.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-th...
Purposed
How do you know I'm not a priest? Oh, wait a minute -- that's no longer a predictor of whether (or with whom, damned pedophiles) one has sex any more. Forgive me -- I couldn't help myself! Stop me now, moderators -- I've gone to the "dark side" by giving into the temptation of lazy insults!
I'm a few years past the need for b.c. now, so sex is much more fun!! Thanks for your concern, though!
I just heard about a new male birth control pill
It's about the size of a marble. You put it in your shoe and it makes you limp.
Southie: The fact that the conversation steered away
from the more salient points and into locker room banter must mean tacit agreement on the larger issues. One can hope. Even the thrice-married, childless Limbaugh, in his notorious Fluke debacle, didn't understand how the pill was used, or that it was also prescribed for cysts and tumors. And he obviously didn't care, as long as his Viagra is covered (which most Catholic health plans happily pay for) and his illegal Oxy-pain pills are readily available. BTW, did Rush ever beat his illegal drug problem, or is he still dealing with the pain of being Rush by popping pills?
Bubba
That is so not nice and so wrong,
If he isn't popping them,
it must be residual damage that he is exhibiting.
Women who humor men when they attack are doing themselves and their daughters no favors.
Sadie, are you saying bubba is factually wrong? Or that you disagree with the opinions expressed?
Watch out Nan,
southie might steal your broom as she's really riding her's hard.
Sadie: I know. I slapped myself back into polite company.
All better now. I'm going to point a blaming finger, and say it was Purposed who started all of this nastiness! (lol, purposed - take that!) But Sadie, you do tend to give a pass to the "boys will be boys" bad behavior if it's one of your conservative friends who says something rude or out of line. I've never heard you object to their behavior, (only make excuses for them). Just sayin'. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program of being nice and staying on-topic.
Bubba, Rush gave all his pills to our pill poppin'
governor!
pdnet: Leave it to Rush to continue in his bad 'ole
illegal ways. Yer not supposed to pass drugs along to the unprescribed! That's a big no-no. Of course, he might not have understood the law. He apparently got his happy pills from a trusted housekeeper. Did she have to do the jail time, or did they both skate? I haven't kept up. Play nice, now (I'm already in trouble today).
Marbles an aspirin-the clear answer
Arlo says marbles in the shoe for the men and if the women hold an aspirin tightly between their knees, Voila, cheap double safe birth control. We just solved a world wide problem.
Bankrupt farmer
Then there was the farmer who had to file bankruptcy. He had to many kids. Claimed his wife was a bad farmer. She couldn't keep her calves together. LOL