03/02/2004: "Courts don't get it"
Yet again the courts of the land don't understand. The California Supreme Court has ruled against Catholic Charities in regards to the mandatory birth control laws. Here's an article on it.
I think there is a HUGE confusion in America in regards to difference between inclusions and exclusions, between what is allowed and what is required.
I was OK with the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the Washington state scholarship exclusion. It is perfectly allowable for a state to exclude a group (religous or otherwise) from a scholarship. At the same time, the US Supreme Court ruling did not say that the state is required to exclude religion. As such, the ruling did not affect the possibility of school vouchers.
So what does the constitution say about religion. It is actually quite simple:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
To state this a different way:
-The state is prevented from requiring a religion.
-The state is also required to allow religions to practice their faith.
Which brings me back to our misguided judges on the California Supreme Court. In this case, the state has created a law that requires employers to provide birth control if they provide perscription drug coverage. The state's argument is that Catholic Charities isn't the Catholic Church. But the constitution doesn't talk about churches (even though one could make a very strong argument that Catholic Charities is part of the Catholic Church) it talks about religion. In the end, the people of Catholic Charities are not allowed to freely exercise their faith. The Catholic Faith believes that birth control pills are immoral.
This law is not about allowing employers to provide birth control, it is about requiring it. By requiring it, the state is requiring us Catholics to follow their religion: one in which birth control is a moral option.
What is so difficult about this for people to understand? The law is clearly unconstitutional.
