What is to be learned from this episode? A number of things: The large expansion of federal power hidden in the innumerable pages of the legislation which established “Obamacare”. Obama’s captivity to his much-vaunted “base”, with its strongly secularist contingent (I have called it an American version of the Turkish ideology of Kemalism—religion is a virus to be kept out of public space, quarantined in religious reservations). The continuing political clout of religion in the United States (Kemalists are always surprised when they come across this—perhaps because they mostly talk to each other). And, contrary to a widespread opinion, the fact that the “culture war” between conservatives and progressives is by no means over—and continues to be politically significant. Each of these lessons would merit extensive discussion. However, I would like to comment here with a different focus—the deepening relationship of Catholics and Evangelicals.

This has been going on for some time in America. In a broader historical perspective, this is something new.

More here.

The first is that this mandate reaches far beyond Catholic Institutions that receive government financing. The agency that facilitated the adoptions of both my children is run by Evangelical Christians, receives no money from any government, and will be forced by this mandate to pay for something it finds abhorrent.

This leads us to the second issue, which is that no one wants to discuss the fact that we have moved beyond simple contraception… to abortifacients. We are not simply talking about stopping fertilization, the government has surreptitiously expanded its demands to include the destruction of a zygote. This, for many in this country, equates to abortion. At least five of your six contributors will certainly disagree with that thought process, but it is very real to many. Professor Hulsether makes a typical pro-choice argument debunking those who believe that life begins at conception, but does not follow by positing his position on when it does begin, thereby leaving a gaping hole in his argument. He attacks those who believe differently than he as “extreme”, claiming that “virtually everyone” agrees with his position, but that position is left unstated in order to protect him from any opposition. However, the bottom line is that this is not a debate about the beginning of life, but the rights of religiously-affiliated organizations not to participate in practices that run contrary to their most deeply-held beliefs.

Finally, we are not arguing about the right of a woman to obtain contraception, or even free contraception. Nothing in the opposing viewpoint of the Catholic Bishops nor the other defenders of conscience would stop a woman from being able to obtain contraceptives, or even abortifacients. It will not even stop those who can’t afford them from getting them free of charge. Planned Parenthood received half a billion dollars of government funding last year to provide services just like this, and there are plenty of other resources available to women who want these services. Why not let them? The question is, who will pay? In the example I mentioned at the outset, the private Christian adoption agency, who believes that life begins at fertilization, will be forced to violate its conscience and pay for the abortions it counsels its clients against.

This has nothing to do with, as Professor Maguire describes, the “bankruptcy of dioceses”. This is not about, as Professor Hulsether describes, “controlling women’s bodies,” or Professor Sands’ slippery slope tale of “all employers.” We are talking about FORCING organizations to literally choose between paying for services that run diametrically opposed to their conscience, or ultimately closing their doors. The doors of our adoption agency are open to all, have helped thousands of women with their pre-natal care, and placed hundreds of children in loving homes. Am I correct in assuming that this now runs contrary to our nation’s ever-changing values? If not, why not allow these women to obtain the services that are already available to them, many through your tax dollars and mine, and allow those of opinions different from the vast majority of your scholars to protect their consciences? Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the right of a man to swing his fist ends at the tip of another man’s nose. It appears that religiously-affiliated organizations better stock up on tissue.