The question of religious liberties has once again landed in the lap of the Supreme Court. The fine balance of rights to healthcare and rights to civil liberties has once again become centered around the Affordable Care Act.
In 2014, Hobby Lobby appeared before the Supreme Court arguing against paying for contraceptive care. The claim was based on religious grounds with the premise that churches are exempt from the clause for this precise reason.
The court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. It created an amendment that switched the burden of contraceptives from the employer to the government. Thus, women working for the corporation still get the healthcare they need and Hobby Lobby would not be legally required to pay for it.
This time, a coalition of non-profit religious organizations have sked for the right to an exemption or amendment. The group argued that they should not have to pay for contraception because churches and Hobby Lobby are exempt.
At the current moment, the eight-person court is split. The four liberal justices lean towards supporting the government. Meanwhile, the four conservative justices lean towards supporting the religious organizations. It is likely that there will be no winner. Thus, his issue will come up again soon.
Between now and then, important questions need to be asked. Both religious freedom and contraception come at a price. But it is unclear who should be paying for either. It is true that many young women are forced to take online personal loans to pay for healthcare and birth control. In the case of the religious non-profits, there is a significant gray area. People who work at a religious hospital are not always members of the same church. Refusing to pay for birth control muddies the waters because it would be imparting its religious beliefs on employees.
Arguments for the amendment say that women’s contraception will not be banned, just difficult to get.
The potential difficulty undermines one of the core tenants of the ACA. The ACA covers preventative care services which includes contraceptives. The premise is that providing preventative care helps drives down costs while keeping people healthy. The law requires that these services be provided seamlessly and through one policy. There must be no differences in cost, coverage or delivery regardless of gender or history.
This tenant of the ACA was one of the most progressive moves in American healthcare and trying to remove contraception from the table is archaic. These hormones do more than prevent unwanted pregnancies. Several of these drugs are essential components for treatment for several reproductive diseases. Asking women to pay for these drugs through a separate insurance plan or cash from their own pockets is like forcing them to pay money to be well enough to work.
The obvious goal is to find a compromise. The compromise would lie somewhere between delivering essential services and respecting religious beliefs. However, this compromise is impossible because someone’s civil liberties will be at stake. Right now, it looks like it will be the liberties of women across the country who don’t want to their employer to mandate their ovulation.
Protecting religious liberty is an important and valuable facet of American society. But it is hard to explain why women are the ones who have to pay for it.