Contraception

  • December 16, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law at UNLV Boyd School of Law

    “In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion’ that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in City of Boerne v. Flores, the 1997 case that invalidated RFRA for state governments. RFRA still prohibits the federal government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion.” Congress drafted RFRA to express its dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s important ruling in Employment Division v. Smith that all citizens must obey neutral laws. Smith rejected the argument that religious citizens are constitutionally entitled to disobey the law. In contrast, “RFRA establishes an across-the-board scheme that deliberately singles out religious practices, en masse, as a congressionally favored class of activity,” as Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argued in briefing Boerne.

    Justice Stevens and Professor Hamilton were right. The most fundamental Establishment Clause rule is that the government may not prefer religion over irreligion or non-religion. RFRA, however, “privileges religion over all other expressions of conscience.” Unfortunately, in 1997 only Stevens and Hamilton recognized the establishment problems with RFRA, which continues to bind the federal government.

    Those problems were confirmed by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Hobby Lobby, which exempted the large arts and crafts chain store from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act without mentioning the Establishment Clause. The mandate requires employee health care plans to contain preventive care coverage that includes FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures. Because Hobby Lobby’s Christian owners believe that contraception causes the death of a human embryo, they want to deny contraceptive insurance to their employees. The Tenth Circuit ruled that RFRA grants the employers that right.

  • January 22, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Policy Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

    It’s been 40 years since the Supreme Court protected a woman’s right to make a decision about whether to have an abortion, and some are still trying to take that right away. In the world of abortion politics that’s dismaying -- but certainly not shocking news.

    It’s been longer still since the Court first protected the right to contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. And while many of us in the reproductive rights movement have long known that our opposition is keen to limit access to birth control as well, that largely came as news to the public. Watching in disbelief, many turned to activism as the availability of affordable contraception was attacked time and again this last year. Indeed, recently national attention has been laser-focused on birth control -- whether women should have insurance coverage for it, and what to do about the objections of employers who want nothing to do with it.

    The federal contraceptive coverage rule -- one of the greatest advances in women’s health policy in decades -- guarantees insurance coverage of birth control, with an exception for houses of worship. Right off the bat a small but vocal opposition came out swinging, arguing that the rule is an unparalleled violation of religious liberty. These groups did not only want a sweeping set of loopholes, they pushed -- and are still pushing -- for the rule to be dismantled altogether, so that no woman would have its benefits, no matter where she works.

  • March 20, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Leslie Griffin, Larry & Joanne Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics at the University of Houston Law Center


    Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church condemned the separation of church and state and taught that only Catholics had the right to public worship and religious liberty. In a series of nuanced essays written from 1940-1965, the New York Jesuit Catholic priest John Courtney Murray developed a historical argument that the prohibition on separation was not a timeless, universal norm, but was best understood as a response to the anticlerical liberalism of modern Europe. Hence, Murray concluded, American Catholics could favor the separation of church and state even though Rome (mistakenly) opposed it. Senator John F. Kennedy consulted Murray as he prepared his famous 1960 campaign address to Houston Baptist ministers pledging his commitment to the separation of church and state. The speech set the stage for Kennedy’s election as the first Catholic president of the United States.

    The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church approved the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), at the last session of the Council in December 1965. DH changed prior Catholic teaching by affirming that religious liberty is the right of every human person, not a right of Catholics only. Murray was the lead drafter of the declaration.

    Murray told reporter Robert Blair Kaiser in 1965 that the “resolution of the religious liberty issue had ‘transferential implications’ for those trying to work out the birth control question.” The “birth control question” asked if the church should revise its prohibition on artificial contraception. After extensive debate and reports from a papal commission, the church did not do so. Pope Paul VI instead reaffirmed the immorality of contraception in his 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV).

    HV is the intellectual source of the Catholic Church’s current battle with the Obama administration over the provision of contraceptive insurance to its Catholic and non-Catholic employees. The church teaches that contraception is morally wrong as a matter of natural law for all men and women, Catholic and non-Catholic, married and non-married, without regard to whether they choose to believe or accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    No one doubts that the bishops are sincere in their commitment to the anti-contraception moral principle. They are mistaken, however, to believe that the religious freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution entitles them to enforce their moral beliefs on others through force of law. Murray and Kennedy had a better sense of what the Constitution protects.

  • February 10, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    Following sharp attacks from religious and conservative groups of the health care rule that would require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, the White House has announced a minor alteration to the rule that maintains free access to birth control.

    The change would shift the onus of providing the contraceptive services from the employer to the insurance provider. If a religiously affiliated employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefits package, the insurance company will be required to reach out directly to the beneficiary to offer full contraceptives coverage.

    “No woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes,” Obama said in announcing the change today. He added:

    I understand some in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way. … We live in a pluralistic society where we’re not gonna agree on every single issue or share every belief. That doesn’t mean we have to choose between individual liberty and basic fairness.

    Today's shift, described by one official as an “accommodation” rather than a “compromise,” was quickly endorsed by the Catholic Health Association, one of the original critics of the rule, as well as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    But the announcement is not likely to satisfy some of the most committed critics. Just last night during a webcast, the Family Research Council blasted the contraception rule as “not only an attack on the consciences of employers and employees, but a direct attack on religious freedom.”

    Throughout the week, constitutional experts have reiterated that the contraception rule did not violate the Constitution’s religious liberty clauses.   

     "There isn't a constitutional issue involved," prominent litigator David Boies told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn’t subject to the same rules as every other employer.”

    “One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman highlights some excerpts from the Smith decision in which Scalia, “himself a devout and very conservative Catholic,” makes the case for Obama. Scalia wrote:

  • May 13, 2010
    BookTalk
    Red Families v. Blue Families
    Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture
    By: 
    Naomi Cahn & June Carbone

    By Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School & June Carbone, Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School  of Law 

    Released last week, a new study found that women over the age of 35 in the U.S. gave birth to more babies than did American teens -- a reversal of the situation 20 years ago.

    Given our research into family formation, this doesn't surprise us. In Red Families v. Blue Families, we discuss which families are succeeding in the 21st Century. It is "blue" families, which invest in women as well as men, delay family formation until after young adults reach emotional maturity and financial independence, and view sexuality as a private matter, that have adapted to the new information economy. By contrast, the "red" family system is a traditional one that continues to preach abstinence, early marriage and more traditional gender roles. The religious backlash against the new values has locked red families into a war against modernity. The book also shows how cultural controversies over abortion, gay marriage and single motherhood are masking the country's real divisions, and then suggest practical steps to reshape the debate surrounding red and blue America.