Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Creationism Kicked: Indiana Bill Killed Over Fears Of Costly Litigation

brown — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:31:28 +0000

No matter how Indiana lawmakers tried to modify the bill, there was no getting around the fact that it was blatantly unconstitutional.

Ding, dong, the bill is dead, the creationism bill is dead!

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma has decided to table legislation that would have mandated the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. The bill had passed the Indiana Senate, albeit with a modification requiring the teaching of other theories on the origins of life on Earth from several religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.

The problem was that no matter how Indiana lawmakers tried to modify the bill, there was no getting around the fact that it was blatantly unconstitutional.

Did Bosma have a change of heart and realize that creationism has no place in public schools? Nothing of the sort. He simply realized that a little thing called the U.S. Supreme Court was in his way.

“It seemed to me not to be a productive discussion, particularly in light that there is a United States Supreme Court case that appears to be on point that very similar language is counter to the constitution,” Bosma said, according to the Indianapolis Star. “It looked to me to be buying a lawsuit when the state can ill afford it.”

Bosma is, surprisingly, correct on both those points.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear on “creation science.” In the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the justices struck down a Louisiana law requiring the public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The law’s intent, the court said, was to promote the teachings of certain religious denominations.

Lawsuits definitely aren’t cheap. An attorney for the city of Cranston, R.I., estimated recently that taking a lawsuit over a public school prayer banner to the Supreme Court would cost around $700,000 for the entire process.

In spite of the many reasons to abandon the creationism bill, which has been introduced multiple times by Sen. Dennis Kruse, we will probably see it again next year. Kruse has analyzed the makeup of the Supreme Court and he thinks the justices are ready to overturn Edwards v. Aguillard.

“We have five pretty decent Supreme Court members who have been ruling pretty conservative on a lot of different things and they might have had a different ruling,” Kruse said, according to the Star.

That seems unlikely. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy isn’t usually on board with the promotion of religion in public schools, and even conservatives like Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito might think creationism in public school science classes goes too far. Even if Kruse had a point, it would still cost the state of Indiana a lot of money to re-litigate the issue. If Indiana can’t afford the lawsuit this year, what makes Kruse think the state will be able to afford it next year?

Kruse seems to be obsessed with “creation science,” and he needs to give it up already. He has lost the fight. Besides, there is important legislative work to be done, which is where his focus needs to be.

Issues:

Creationism & Evolution

Tags:

Dennis Kruse, Brian Bosma, creationism

Location:

Indiana

Texas Toast: El Paso Church Loses Legal Case Over Political Intervention

boston — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:06:33 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

A heap of trouble for a political pastor in Texas.

An El Paso church’s brazen effort to remove the mayor and two members of the city council has been brought to a screeching halt.

The political drama in the west Texas town started last summer when Pastor Tom Brown of Word of Life Church issued a politically charged email to the community. Brown, who sent the email under the guise of his Tom Brown Ministries, attacked El Paso Mayor John Cook and El Paso City Council Members Steve Ortega and Susie Byrd because the three voted to extend health-care benefits to domestic partners.

Brown then joined forces with a group called El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values (EPFTFV) and announced he would recall Cook, Ortega and Byrd. His ministry’s website posted an “Open Letter to City Council” that said in part, “If you are upset at this action and would like to sign and/or circulate a recall petition against Mayor John Cook and Representatives Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega, then fill out the form below. Share this page with your friends and get them to fill out the form. Thanks.”

Brown’s church and ministry essentially organized and coordinated the recall campaign, taking the lead role in circulating petitions. The church gathered enough signatures to put the matter on the ballot, but Brown overlooked one thing: Texas election laws prohibit corporations (which includes non-profit groups) from intervening in elections.

County Court Judge Javier Alvarez had earlier ruled that the church and EPFTFV had broken the law, but he refused to stop the election, arguing it would thwart the will of the people.

The Texas 8th Court of Appeals was not impressed with this curious logic. Ruling unanimously, the court slammed Alvarez and made it clear that the state’s laws must be enforced.

“Despite having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order and indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, we find the trial court’s order denying injunctive relief is so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion,” wrote the judges.

The appeals court added, “It is essential to the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial process that a judge be faithful to the law and not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. It is significant, we think, that the trial court lost sight of the fact that a proper application of the law to the facts in this case does not act to bar voters from properly exercising their right to seek a recall of elected office holders, provided that such right is exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Election Code.”

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal organization founded by television and radio preachers in the early 1990s, jumped into the case on behalf of Brown’s church. Joel Oster, the ADF attorney who handled the lawsuit, didn’t comment after the ruling came down, and the two local attorneys who worked on it, Theresa Caballero and Stuart Leeds, hung up on an El Paso Times reporter who called asking for comment.

The bombastic Brown attacked the appeals court and is vowing to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but Mark Walker, Cook’s attorney, thinks it’s unlikely that the state high court will hear the matter. Walker noted that the Texas Supreme Court usually hears cases only if the lower court was split or if lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on a legal question.

“My analysis is it can’t be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court,” Walker told the Times. He called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law.”

Brown’s troubles may not over. He could get slapped with a bill for Cook’s legal fees, which have topped a quarter of a million dollars. Furthermore, violations of the Texas election law can result in criminal penalties. Jaime Esparza, the local district attorney, is investigating that aspect of things.

Finally, Americans United last year asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Brown’s partisan political activities and, if he is found in violation of the law, to revoke his ministry’s tax-exempt status.

It sounds like Brown has stepped into quite a tar pit. Maybe all of this political intervention by a church might not have been a good idea after all.

Issues:

Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections

Tags:

El Paso, Tom Brown, John Cook, Mark Walker, Steve Ortega, Susie Byrd, El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values, Joel Oster, Alliance Defense Fund

Presidential Proclamations: Some Chief Executive Thoughts For The Holiday

boston — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:34:05 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

Read some presidential classics of religious liberty.

Today is Presidents’ Day. Celebrate by reading some great presidential classics of religious liberty!

Start with George Washington’s letter to Touro Synagogue, one of the most succinct statements ever issued about religious liberty.

Of course, Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the famous “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor, is always worth your time.

Spend some time perusing James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” one of most powerful collections of arguments against religion taxes ever amassed.

Finish up with a more recent document – John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in which he called for “absolute” separation of church and state. It’s hard to beat.

A president didn’t have to be one of the greats to make an impact on church-state relations. Even the caretakers occasionally reeled off a memorable line. Here’s Rutherford B. Hayes: “We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion both suffer by all such interference.”

You tell them, Rutherford!

Happy Presidents’ Day.

Issues:

History and Origins of Church-State Separation

Tags:

George Washington, thomas jefferson, James Madison, John F. Kennedy, Rutherford B. Hayes, Presidents' Day, Letter to Touro Synagogue, Danbury Baptists

Rash Of Reasonableness: R.I. School Board Ends Legal Fight Over Prayer Banner

brown — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:54:14 +0000

Simon Brown

Wall of Separation

Maybe now the school can get back to what it’s supposed to be doing – educating young people.

In a rare display of reason, the Cranston, R.I., School Committee decided not to appeal a court decision in which a judge ordered the removal of a prayer banner at Cranston High School West.

The committee voted 5-2 last night not to appeal the decision, but I suspect it’s not because the committee had a genuine change of heart. After all of the awful things that community has said about Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year-old who complained about the prayer banner, it’s more likely that reality set in.

As the committee was informed, a prolonged legal fight is real expensive.

Ahlquist’s attorneys have asked for $173,000 in legal fees from the city and Joseph Cavanagh Jr., a lawyer who represented the city, said if the case went all the way to the Supreme Court it could cost an additional $500,000 in legal fees, according to the Associated Press.

"You will be wasting time and incredible resources,” resident Rosemary Tregar said at a forum before the committee vote. “Half a million dollars? How dare you.”

Apparently the dizzying costs of an appeal were enough to persuade two members of the school committee who last year voted to defend the banner in court. Committee member Paula McFarland said there are other fiscal priorities for the city and that its limited money must be spent carefully.

“This is what I don’t like about this community,” she said. “You have divided yourself in half.”

Beyond the cost is the fact that the school committee is on shaky legal ground. Judge Ronald R. Lagueux wrote an excellent and carefully-considered opinion in which he tore apart every claim the school made in defense of the banner.

As my colleague Rob Boston wrote, “In a 40-page slam dunk, Lagueux first dismissed school officials’ claims that Ahlquist had no right to challenge the banner. He then went on to explain why this official school prayer, which has been hanging in the gym since 1963, is patently unconstitutional.”

“No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that,” Lagueux observed.

Nonetheless, a few misguided people want to keep up the fight.

Christopher Young, who is running for U.S. Congress, said he is speaking with students about suing the school in order to keep the appeal going. A legal fight to continue a legal fight? Now that makes a lot of sense.

Even some students asked the board to appeal. One did so in extremely melodramatic terms.

“We have to appeal for the students of Cranston High School West and we have to appeal for our humanity,” said student David Sears Jr., according to the AP.

No one’s humanity or existence is at stake here. What’s at stake is church-state separation and religious freedom. Continuing this legal battle would be an affront to both concepts.

At least for the time being the case is over and hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. Maybe now the school can get back to what it’s supposed to be doing – educating young people.

Issues:

School Prayer

Tags:

Jessica Ahlquist, Ronald R. Lagueux, prayer banner

Location:

Rhode Island

Hapless Hearing: Right Wing ‘War On Contraceptives’ Takes Centerplace In Congress

boston — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:51:36 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

Americans know that access to birth control protects women’s health and ensures the right to privacy.

The U.S. House of Representatives today is holding a hearing on “religious liberty.” Only it’s not a hearing on religious liberty – it’s a hearing about giving powerful religious groups the right to impose their theology on anyone in sight.

With this hearing – which, of course, is being stacked with witnesses favorable to the far right’s view – the discussion over birth control has officially lurched into the Twilight Zone. It’s 2012, and we’re seriously arguing over the extent to which Americans should have the right to access contraceptives, an issue most of us thought was laid to rest a long time ago.

Let’s be clear about one thing: This flap has nothing to do with religious liberty and everything to do with control, specifically, who controls the most intimate details of your life. Will it be you or a band of clerics?

The birth control regulations originally promulgated by the Obama administration exempt houses of worship. They apply only to church-affiliated institutions like colleges and hospitals. These entities exist thanks to massive infusions of public support, and they serve and hire many people from outside the faith traditions that sponsor them.

Yet, in attempt to appease the Catholic hierarchy, Obama tweaked the rule to make it clear that insurance companies, not the church-related institutions, will pay for contraceptives. He needn’t have bothered because the Catholic bishops attacked him anyway. These guys are still smarting over the 1965 Supreme Court ruling that struck down state laws banning the sale of contraceptives. They are not capable of rational discussion over the issue, so why bother?

Worse yet, the bishops then upped the ante. They are now demanding that not only should church-run institutions be freed from the mandate to provide birth control, but private employers as well – even if the business in question has nothing to do with religion. Think about how this would play out. If your boss at the auto parts store happens to be a member of Opus Dei, no birth control coverage for you. If you work for a Jehovah’s Witness, he could refuse to provide coverage for any procedure that might involve a blood transfusion. Or, as this Reuters story notes, a fundamentalist boss could refuse to pay for children’s vaccinations, saying that shows a lack of faith in God.

About birth control: Americans use it. Americans rely on it. Americans want it. The Guttmacher Institute reports that some 98 percent of women will use at least one artificial form of birth control at some point in their lives.

Furthermore, many women use birth control pills not just to limit the number of children they have but for medical purposes. The pills can shrink ovarian cysts, relieve menstrual cramps and regulate monthly periods. Amazingly, some are arguing that women should be denied these medical benefits because of the religious views of their bosses. Furthermore, the argument is being made that when government espouses policies that take away these medical benefits to women, it somehow advances “religious freedom.”

Americans know better. They know that access to birth control protects women’s health and ensures the right to privacy. They also know that it is a curious definition of religious freedom that allows one person to take away the rights of another. In fact, that is not religious liberty at all; it is oppression.

This is borne out by a new poll that shows that the American people aren’t buying the right wing line on this issue. A solid majority backs the contraceptive mandate. Support among Catholics remains high.

As my colleague Simon Brown noted recently, this is a debate about what type of country we are going to be. It’s also indicative of a larger struggle between those Americans who want to move this country forward and those who are determined to drag it back.

I used to think the forces that want to drag us back were aiming for the 1950s. I no longer believe that. Based on their recent statements and antics, I’d say their real target is the 1350s.

Issues:

Reproductive Health & Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors

Tags:

birth control, House of Reprentatives

Religion Over Rights?: Kansas Bill Would Let ‘Religious Freedom’ Curb Civil Liberties

brown — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:13:33 +0000

Simon Brown

Wall of Separation

If Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Lt. Gov. Jeff Coyler get their way, it will be legal to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons in the state – as long as you do it in the name of religion.

A Lawrence, Kan., ordinance that offers broader protections against discrimination than state laws, prevents outright forms of bias. But a bill being considered by the Kansas House of Representatives, HB 2260, would overturn that ordinance.

The bill essentially says government can’t stop anyone from exercising their religious rights unless it can show that religious exercise must be limited to advance a compelling government interest. HB 2260 would even let individuals sue the government if their exercise of religion “has been burdened, or is likely to be burdened.”

Coyler said Feb. 14 during a hearing on the bill that “the federal government’s recent attempts to trample the religious liberties of millions of Americans must be at the forefront of your debate,” according to the Lawrence Journal-World. “Religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as a people.”

This makes no sense. Even if President Barack Obama were trying to limit religious freedom (and he isn’t) with rules that would require employers to cover birth control for employees, that isn’t directly related to the civil rights of GLBT persons in Kansas. Coyler is making a leap in logic that is similar to people who say that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to people wanting to marry chairs. It’s nonsense.

This does, however, have everything to do with limits on religious expression and the government’s place in setting those limits. Why should a government allow people to impose their religious beliefs on others, potentially at severe cost? We have a great deal of freedom in this country, but without some limits there would be chaos.

At the hearing on the bill, Vickie Sandell Stangl, president of the Great Plains Chapter of Americans United, testified that religious freedom shouldn’t be expanded at the expense of civil rights.

“If this bill were enacted, its provisions could be used to deny Kansas citizens access to critical healthcare and safety services,” she said. “Examples from cases explicate this potential problem: Based on their religious beliefs, a maternity ward nurse refused to scrub for an emergency caesarian section and left a woman ‘standing in a pool of blood,’ a nurse insisted on telling an AIDS patient and his partner about her views on salvation and that God ‘doesn’t like the homosexual lifestyle,’ and a police officer refused to guard an abortion clinic.’”

This bill has come up before. Last year it didn’t go anywhere, but this year its supporters have some added ammunition thanks to hysteria over the Obama mandate on birth control ginned up by the far right.

In support of the bill, Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said “increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting,” according to the Journal-World.

What Coyler, Schuttloffel and other advocates of this bill are really doing is using “religious freedom” as a justification for allowing some Kansans to impose their religion onto others. It also seeks to tie the government’s hands. After all, if a government is severely limited from protecting basic rights because the law makes it almost impossible to do so, how long before that government simply gives up?

Religious freedom is not under attack in the United States. Those who claim it is are using tactics of fear and distortion to justify radical changes that would make it much easier for them to impose their narrow version of faith onto unwilling third parties. Legislation like this can crush rights and spawn chaos, which is why every effort must be made to make sure that HB 2260 ends up on the legislative scrap heap, just as it did last year.

Issues:

Outside the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions & Religious Practice (including in the Military, Prisons, Housing, Healthcare, etc.)

Tags:

Sam Brownback, Jeff Coyler, birth control, President Obama, Kansas Catholic Conference, Kansas HB 2260, Vickie Sandell Stangl

Location:

Kansas

Devan’s Dilemma: When Bothered By Church-State Violations, Call Americans United

boston — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:27:21 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

Indiana's dirty little secret: Creationism in public schools.

Whenever we debate a church-state issue like religion in public schools or the use of sectarian prayers before government meetings, we must always remember there is a human face behind every one of these controversies.

Someone’s rights are being violated. Someone is being treated like a second-class citizen. Someone is being singled out because of what he or she believes about theology.

A sophomore at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., reminded us of this recently. Devan Filchak, a journalism major, recounted how creationism was taught in her public school.

“I was surprised when my science teacher pulled up a video of the seven days of creation during class,” Filchak wrote in the Ball State Daily News. “The video was not only cheesy, but it crossed a line that is unconstitutional.”

She continued, “When I showed my distaste, my teacher picked on me, prodding me until I finally admitted I am Agnostic in front of the whole class. For about three or four days, the teacher brought up religion. I was upset, but I wasn’t sure who to talk to about it at first.”

Filchak writes that she approached the school guidance counselor, who dismissed her concerns and said he didn’t see a problem with creationism in the classroom. Filchak was a senior and the school year was drawing to a close, so she dropped the matter.

I’m fortunate to live in an area with a diverse, well educated population. Any attempt to introduce creationism into the schools my children attend would result in an immediate uproar. But I’m also aware that I can point my car in any direction, drive 50 miles and be in areas where that’s not necessarily the case.

We can’t have an education system where some young people learn modern biology untainted with religious fundamentalism and others get a dose of creationism simply because of geography. In fact, the teaching of creationism in public schools in unconstitutional – and that means it’s illegal in Biloxi as well as Boston.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette picked up on Devan’s column and opined that creationism in Indiana public schools is the state’s “dirty little secret.” I’m glad Devan shined a light on this issue, especially since she lives in a state where legislators are considering a patently unconstitutional creationism bill. Young people’s education is at stake, and we need more of them to speak out.

For all of those other Devans out there who are wondering what they can do to combat unconstitutional promotion of religion in their schools, I want you to know there is help. Contact Americans United. Our attorneys will investigate. If the activity is indeed a violation of separation of church and state, they’ll let the school officials and the district’s attorneys know about that and make it clear that they must stop.

Often we can resolve matters with a letter, but litigation is always a possibility. But remember, AU can’t just swing into town and start suing a school if we believe church-state separation is being violated. We have to represent local plaintiffs.

Every lawsuit we’ve ever filed, every case sponsored by an allied organization that we’ve joined and every letter we’ve mailed to school officials came about because someone picked up the phone or sent us an email to report a problem.

Americans United makes it easy by putting a “report-a-violation” form online. It’s right here.

Issues:

Creationism & Evolution

Tags:

Devan Filchak, Ball State University, Indiana, creationism

Birth Control Battle: Obama Must Stand Firm Against Sectarian Lobbies

brown — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:28:27 +0000

Simon Brown

Wall of Separation

Ultimately this isn’t just about exempting churches or even about exempting church hospitals and colleges. This is about the kind of country we’re going to be. Do we want to be a country where the government takes its orders from right-wing clergy, or do we want laws that ensure fairness, equality and freedom of conscience for all?

Who gets to decide how you run your life: you or a small group of aggressive religious leaders?

In a nation that separates religion and government, the answer ought to be easy. Apparently it’s not.

As USA Today reports, the battle over birth control access has turned into a major church-state conflict. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Religious Right and their right-wing political allies are trying to deny women access to fundamental contraceptive services solely because those services don’t conform to church doctrines.

It’s outrageous that the Catholic bishops and their fundamentalist Christian accomplices think they can enlist the government to enforce religious doctrines, even if it impacts the most personal and intimate parts of Americans’ lives.

President Barack Obama initially exempted houses of worship from the birth control mandate, but that wasn’t enough for ultra-conservative church leaders. So on Feb. 10, Obama compromised further. He reconfigured Health and Human Services regulations to mandate that insurance companies, not “faith-based” organizations, pick up the tab for contraceptive coverage.

Did that make the bishops and their buddies happy? Of course not!

The Catholic hierarchy and the Religious Right want an exemption so broad that any employer anywhere can deny coverage by claiming a religious belief.

The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, according to an account in USA Today last week.

"There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."

Picarello and the bishops apparently want to remove the birth control provision from the health care law altogether. First, they claimed a concern was church-related colleges and hospitals. Now it’s any employer who wants to impose his personal religious beliefs on his workforce. Picarello cited "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job,” said Picarello, “and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

Well, yeah, Mr. Picarello, you would be -- and you should be!

Americans United’s Rob Boston said in today’s USA Today report, "If the state can demonstrate that access for all women to preventive health care is a compelling interest, it can trump religious freedom. The bishops are asking for a very broad exception -- the right of private employers, not just institutions, to personally cut off access to any employee. That's a definition of religious freedom way beyond what any court has defined as religious freedom. It allows your boss to impose his religion on you."

An underlying issue here is that the Catholic hierarchy can’t face the fact that it has lost the war on contraceptives. One study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives. The 1950s are over, and they’re not coming back. But the hierarchy is clinging to the past, and its grip is not easily loosened.

The bishops’ friends in Congress are pushing legislation that would gut the birth control mandate, and right-wing legal outfits are challenging the policy in federal court. In the meantime, the hierarchy and the Religious Right are certain to continue their crusade against administration policy.

President Obama must stand his ground because the direction of the nation is at stake. Sectarian lobbies must be taught that they do not have the power to dominate public policy.

Issues:

Reproductive Health & Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors

Tags:

Barack Obama, Anthony Picarello, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, birth control, Health and Human Services

Adopting Bias: New Va. Rules Seek To Safeguard ‘Faith-Based’ Bigotry

boston — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:22:12 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

A new Virginia policy allows faith-based agencies to deny adoption services to anyone who offends the agency’s religious or moral beliefs.

Legislators and media pundits in Washington, D.C., continue to obsess over the birth control mandate in the new health care law and whether church-related institutions like hospitals and colleges must provide contraceptive coverage.

While that’s going, a quieter tussle in Virginia has captured fewer national headlines. That’s a shame because a debate over adoption by same-sex couples in that state is perhaps a better indicator of where the Religious Right wants to take this country.

The Virginia legislature is firmly in the hands of far-right lawmakers, and Gov. Robert McDonnell, is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University. A dark cloud of Religious Right-style conservatism hangs over the Old Dominion.

A band of extreme legislators decided to start with adoptions. Virginia, like a lot of states, contracts with private agencies to facilitate adoptions. Many of these agencies are “faith based.” The old rule was that they had to serve all potential parents and apply neutral criteria to the process. An agency would investigate a person or couple wanting to adopt and reject only those who failed some objective standard – they had a criminal background, their references didn’t work out, they appeared unfit to raise a child, etc.

Under new rules that are expected to become law soon, faith-based adoption agencies will be permitted to deny services to anyone who fails to meet their theological litmus test. In other words, a couple could pass a criminal background check with flying colors, receive top marks from every reference, show proof of steady employment – and still be denied the right to adopt because they are gay.

This type of bigotry, while obnoxious, might be permissible in a purely privately funded agency run by a church. But as I said, most of these adoption agencies operate in a quasi-public fashion on behalf of the government, and they receive taxpayer funding.

State Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat from Roanoke, got it exactly right when he said, "You have a right to exercise religion as you see fit, but you don’t have a right to impose it on someone else using state dollars.”

And, while this is primarily a fight over adoption by gay couples, no one should think it stops there. The new Virginia policy is much broader than that. It allows faith-based agencies to deny adoption services to anyone who offends the agency’s religious or moral beliefs. Let’s say you’re straight but you and your spouse are deemed not religious enough, or they don’t like the fact that one of you had a previous marriage. You’re out the door too.

The Religious Right/Catholic hierarchy theory on this is simple: They want it all. They want access to your tax money to provide various social services. They want as little accountability or oversight as possible. (No accountability at all is their preference.) They demand the right to run the programs as they see fit according to their theology. They even insist that this is a constitutional right and that any attempt to impose another perspective on them – no matter widespread the consensus – is a violation of their “religious freedom.”

The more “accommodation” these groups win, the more they will demand – and the more rights of everyone else they will trample on.

Issues:

The Faith-Based Initiative & Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers, Outside the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions & Religious Practice (including in the Military, Prisons, Housing, Healthcare, etc.), Other Privacy Issues (including end-of-life matters, etc.)

Tags:

virginia, adoption, Robert McDonnell, Pat Robertson

HHS Rule Maintains Freedom of Religion for Individual Women

krueger — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:25:38 +0000

Emily Krueger

Legislative

It is the woman’s right to exercise her religion freely and make her own decisions about reproductive health, even if she is employed by an organization that holds a different position on these matters.

Yesterday, Rob Boston discussed a bit of the controversy that has erupted in response to the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) decision to require all institutions to provide insurance plans for their employees that include contraceptive coverage, with a narrow exemption for houses of worship. Even though Americans overwhelmingly support the President’s decision, there is a lot of misinformation out there and there has been a huge backlashby the religious right and in the media. To set the record straight, we put together talking points on why the exemption should not be expanded as well as legal arguments explaining that expansion would risk violating the Constitution. A few important points to note:

Houses of worship do get an exemption under the regulation. What critics are currently advocating for, rather, is to widely expand this exemption to include religious hospitals, colleges, and other businesses as well. These types of groups, however, serve as quasi-public institutions in many cities and towns—accepting federal funds, and serving public functions like hospital services. And, these organizations may often be the largest employer in town. Exempting large corporations that are engaged in business transactions because they are associated with a religious institution would deny large numbers of low wage earning women access to contraceptives.

The HHS regulation does not force a religious group or an employee to support or buy contraceptives. The regulation merely requires that some religiously‐affiliated organizations supply health insurance that covers contraceptives. The employee then has the choice to use that coverage or not. It is the individual employee who will make the independent private choice whether to avail herself of prescription contraception as one of the many services under the group insurance plan.

Religiously-affiliated organizations that accept taxpayer dollars should adhere to the rules for taxpayer money. Nearly all of the organizations seeking expansion of the insurance exemption receive federal funding. It defies common sense to think that the government should loosen the rules regarding insurance coverage for religious organizations that wish to receive the benefit of public tax dollars. Along with government funds comes certain requirements and when a religious organization accepts taxpayer dollars those rules must continue to apply. Accordingly, organizations that reap the benefits of federal funding should undoubtedly be denied an exemption from the insurance mandate.
The HHS regulation protects the religious conscience of employees. This rule allows women—not their employers—to make decisions about their healthcare and their religious beliefs. It is the woman’s right to exercise her religion freely and make her own decisions about reproductive health, even if she is employed by an organization that holds a different position on these matters. But, for many women, the right to purchase birth control is often meaningless without the insurance coverage to do so.

The regulation does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause. Two courts have already upheld two nearly identical religious exemptions against claims that they were unconstitutionally narrow. In both cases, the courts concluded that these exemptions from insurance mandates for contraceptives violate neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.

Join us in supporting the Administration’s decision to protect individual religious freedom by taking action here.

Issues:

In the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions & Religious Practice, Outside the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions & Religious Practice (including in the Military, Prisons, Housing, Healthcare, etc.), Lobbying by Churches and Religious Groups, Reproductive Health & Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors