Under President Obama's new health care law, many religious hospitals (specifically Catholic hospitals, at which the majority of the employees are actually not Catholic) will now be required to provide free birth control. Conservatives and the Catholic Church have condemned the administration's policy, with New Gingrich, a Catholic convert himself, audaciously labeling it "the most outrageous assault on religious freedom in American history." He argues that no religious institution should be subordinated to a secular government.
I feel that Ginrich is overexaggerating the implications of this new law; the main purpose of Gingrich's invectives seems to be to mobilize religious voters against Obama and appeal to their love of God and country. Such rhetoric further polarizes this nation which must become united, not divided. Yet again, I can see the incongruity of providing free contraception at a religious hospital and why the new policy is perceived as a violation of the "separation of church and state" principle. Nevertheless, I would not go so far as to call it a "tremendous infringement" of religious liberty, as Gingrich did.
Do you think this law is indeed contrary to separation of church and state? Or is it in the states' best interest to have free contraception provided also at these Catholic hospitals?
Here's the article from which I drew for this post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that the new health care law would be contrary to separation of church and state if it required privately-owned/funded Catholic hospitals to provide free birth control.
I think the issue has a similar resemblance to the time when the legality of teaching evolution was being challenged in court. What constitutes the separation of church and state when it is really a mix of the two? Everyone needs health care in some basic form, and there are some health care centers affiliated with religious groups. I think that Obama has the right to enforce the law as long as the hospital receives government aid. As controversial as it sounds, I think Newt Gingrich is just playing up every aspect of negativity he can get.
I am kind of in between about this law. In one side, research has shown that birth controls have helped reduce the chances of women getting certain types of cancer. In addition, birth control pills have other uses other than for protecting women from getting pregnant. Most people who use the birth control pills are married couples that are not financially stable or ready for a baby. Even Catholic women use the pills at some point in their lives.
However, there are some Catholics that see the usage of birth control pills as a sin and most of the people who think that way do not use it. Catholic hospitals do not want to prescribe birth control and it seems unfair to force a religious institution. I have to agree that this does violate the first amendment freedom of religion. Although exaggerated by Gingrich, it does seem like the law invades a conscientious belief. Gingrich is obviously trying to make Obama look bad because of this law, but i doubt Gingrich will get much out of it.
Gingrich's comment is definitely an exaggeration. The law only states that the hospitals must have birth control available. It doesn't mean that every patient has to use it. Patients still have the freedom not to use birth control if that goes against their religious beliefs, so there is no infringement on the patients' religous freedom. I agree with Alice that as long as these hospitals are receiving government aid, the government has a right to put state rules over church rules.
I agree with Alice as long as the government is providing money for the hospitals, the hospitals have to follow the state rules theres no way around it . I believe Gingrich is just trying to persuade the religious voters to vote against Obama.
Post a Comment