Comments on The HHS mandate and religious freedom: A short response to EduardoTypePad2012-02-08T18:19:00ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/the-hhs-mandate-and-religious-freedom-a-short-response-to-eduardo/comments/atom.xml/Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'The HHS mandate and religious freedom: A short response to Eduardo'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20167622e3551970b2012-02-12T02:23:41Z2012-02-12T02:23:41ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.comDenise, that's fine. But the argument you're making goes past the bounds of most of the rhetoric emanating from the...<p>Denise, that's fine. But the argument you're making goes past the bounds of most of the rhetoric emanating from the anti-mandate side of things. Most of them have been arguing from the assumption that a mandate for non-religious employers is appropriate, and not questioning (at least openly) the value of the services rendered. They've been staying (supposedly) wholely within the realm of religious freedom. Your argument seems to rely much more on prudential judgments about the societal value of the mandate.</p>Denise J. Hunnell commented on 'The HHS mandate and religious freedom: A short response to Eduardo'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20168e701d832970c2012-02-09T00:57:26Z2012-02-09T00:57:26ZDenise J. Hunnellhttp://catholic-mom.blogspot.comI would like to offer some thoughts with regards to Ellen Wertheimer's questions. It might be good to take a...<p>I would like to offer some thoughts with regards to Ellen Wertheimer's questions. It might be good to take a step back and remember why we are having this discussion at all. It began back in July when HHS declared that contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients (morning after pill) constituted preventive medicine. As a physician, I maintain this is a stretch. Preventive medicine prevents disease and maintains health. The above interventions take a perfectly healthy reproductive system and render it sterile. I argued this in more detail here. <a href="http://tiny.cc/idkr7" rel="nofollow">http://tiny.cc/idkr7</a> The use of contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are lifestyle choices. They are elective medicine. Therefore, forcing a religious institution to violate its tenets of faith and morals to accommodate elective and medically unnecessary medicine is inappropriate. (And before anyone brings it up, I am not including the use of the hormonal components of contraceptives for the treatment of pathological medical conditions as elective medical therapy) Blood transfusion, on the other hand, are matters of medical necessity and are often life-saving interventions. I believe the medically essential nature of blood transfusions gives them a different ethical status than the purely elective birth control options.</p>Ellen Wertheimer commented on 'The HHS mandate and religious freedom: A short response to Eduardo'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20168e7013ca0970c2012-02-08T23:58:13Z2012-02-08T23:58:13ZEllen WertheimerIn an earlier post on Mirror of Justice, Eric Bugyis stated that: "We agreed that in the case of, say,...<p>In an earlier post on Mirror of Justice, Eric Bugyis stated that: "We agreed that in the case of, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses denying life-saving blood transfusions to non-JW patients or coverage to non-JW employees, the government would have a supervening interest to protect the life/health of its citizens by mandating that JWs either provide these services or get out of a business in which they would be expected to provide them or, perhaps, be fined so that the government could provide them."</p>
<p>I am interested in hearing more about what differentiates the Jehovah's Witness/blood transfusion scenario from the Catholic Church/birth control one. As I understand it, a blood transfusion has far more serious repercussions for a Jehovah's Witness than using contraception has for a Catholic. Despite this, Rick and Eric seem to agree that the Jehovah's Witness employer has no right to withhold coverage for blood transfusions for employees who do not share the belief prohibiting transfusions, while the Catholic employer should have the right to withhold coverage of contraception from employees who do not share the belief that contraception is wrong. </p>
<p>How are these scenarios different in a way that justifies a different result?</p>Andrew MacKie-Mason commented on 'The HHS mandate and religious freedom: A short response to Eduardo'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2016761fc923f970b2012-02-08T19:13:22Z2012-02-08T19:13:22ZAndrew MacKie-Masonhttp://source4politics.blogspot.comThank you for engaging with this side of the issue. All to often it seems like people think asserting "religious...<p>Thank you for engaging with this side of the issue. All to often it seems like people think asserting "religious freedom" ought to be enough to get them an exemption from any law -- except when they think it's too much, and oppose someone else's request for accommodation -- without even an attempt to form a coherent philosophy.</p>
<p>My only quibble would be with your suggestion that religious freedom is getting more play now because liberals are more opposed to it. It seems to me that the shift has occured as religious groups have both become more heterogenous and lost political power. As that happens, they're less able to impose their norms through the normal political process and have to resort more to religious freedom claims. That is, a good theory of religious accommodation isn't necessary when those who would normally be able to get the accommodation are politically powerful.</p>