Law professors oppose further 'compromise' on Obamacare contraception coverage

Attempts to extend the religious liberty exemption to deny women the health insurance coverage for contraception they are due under the Affordable Care Act are fundamentally misguided, argue 170 law professors from major law schools all over the country [.pdf]. In a letter to "President Obama and the Congressional Leadership," they write:

Today, the egalitarian notion that every American deserves to enjoy religious freedom is under attack from those who would cede employees’ religious-liberty rights to corporate executives and nonprofit directors. In this cramped and one-sided view of religious freedom, supervisors are entitled to decide, based on their religious sentiments, whether their employees will be permitted to enjoy essential health benefits without the slightest concern for their religious beliefs. In particular, advocates claim that the Constitution gives all employers the right to veto their employees’ health-insurance coverage of contraception.

This view, which is espoused by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others, is both wrong as a matter of law and profoundly undemocratic. Nothing in our nation’s history or laws permits a boss to impose his or her religious views on non-consenting employees. Indeed, this nation was founded upon the basic principle that every individual – whether company president or assistant janitor – has an equal claim to religious freedom.

...

The federal government must continue to protect the rights of women who need insurance laws so that they may make reproductive choices consistent with their individual conscience. Religious freedom must not provide a justification to deprive women of legal rights they should enjoy as employees and citizens. To the contrary, the First Amendment specifically preserves space for their religious liberty, and secures their right to act as individuals who exercise their own conscience on matters pertaining to their faith, body, and health.

Further misguided compromise is an abbreviation of individual rights, not an extension of religious liberty.

Read the entire letter here [.pdf].

[H/T: Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty]

Religious Freedom Day

January 16 is Religious Freedom Day, commemorating the Virginia General Assembly's adoption of Thomas Jefferson's landmark Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. In his proclamation | [.pdf] this year, President Barack Obama writes:

The Virginia Statute was more than a law. It was a statement of principle, declaring freedom of religion as the natural right of all humanity -- not a privilege for any government to give or take away. Penned by Thomas Jefferson and championed in the Virginia legislature by James Madison, it barred compulsory support of any church and ensured the freedom of all people to profess their faith openly, without fear of persecution. Five years later, the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights followed the Virginia Statute's model, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".

This is a good time to review both the frequently misstated history of religious freedom in the United States, and the frequently misdescribed current law: Religious Expression in American Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law.

The struggle to variously redefine the former and rewrite the latter is ongoing.

Justifying discrimination in the name of religious freedom?

Bad solution to the wrong problem. So argues Peterr at FireDogLake:

Archbishop, if the government offers grants to provide housing for low-income people that have strings attached that you disagree with, such as prohibiting discrimination against certain family arrangements, don’t apply for the grant. It’s that simple. No one is holding a gun to your head, saying “take this money or else.”

This isn’t about religious freedom — it’s about churches asking for special rights: the right to legally discriminate in workplace practices and the right to legally discriminate in the delivery of publicly funded social services.

What are we missing here?

Obama promotes religious freedom in China

Before Obama left, questions were raised about what he would do about religious freedom in China. And they have been answered:

Religious freedom advocates are pleased following President Barak Obama's visit with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who spoke out about the need for religious freedom in China. President Obama also emphasized the importance of freedom of information in a question-and-answer session with college students in Shanghai.