Sen. Lisa Murkowski claims "religious hospitals, charities, and schools will be required to go against their deeply-held -- and constitutionally protected -- beliefs" by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). But Sen. Murkowski and other co-sponsors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 (RFRA) are likely aware that PPACA doesn't violate the First Amendment. Their awareness is evident if one looks to the suit 26 states, including Alaska, filed in opposition to "Obamacare." This case challenges independently the expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate but doesn't question the constitutionality of mandating the inclusion of contraception and abortion coverage for organizations with religious affiliation. If opponents thought there was a plausible First Amendment argument, they would have tried it with the other two.
Religious objection mustn't be grounds for exempting groups from restrictions or obligations imposed by the federal government. Questions about climate, economics or health care can be contested using evidence that is meaningful for anyone, whereas religious questions are answered using evidence that is fundamentally incomprehensible to someone who doesn't share a religious framework. Because of this inherent subjectivity, it would be illogical (as well as unjust) to attempt to define what "counted" as a religious group by size, structure or belief system; it is up to religious groups to decide for themselves whether they want to base their religion on L. Ron Hubbard or Abraham.
Thomas Jefferson understood this when he wrote that "... all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." In other words, the government should allow religious positions to be held and defended but they should be ignored in terms of civil obligation.
If it becomes necessary to compel or restrict activities in the interest of the nation, they should be compelled or restricted without regard for whether or not they hold religious significance to some members of society. This includes equally human sacrifice, polygamy, sharia law or paying no tax, because all beliefs and positions are equally potentially religious. To grant exceptions or privileges on religious grounds would inherently judge those special beliefs as more valuable than religious belief not granted special treatment.
Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment requires that legislation pass the three-part "Lemon Test": A law must have a secular purpose, its primary effect cannot be to inhibit or advance religion, and it mustn't result in excessive entanglement with religion. The PPACA easily passes; its goal and primary impact are providing secular care and all entities affected are already far more entangled with the state in other arenas. Thus, Sen. Murkowski's statements about breaking down the separation of church and state are way off base.
Why is this bill bad policy? Because college students and employees at Catholic universities need contraceptives to be covered by their health care just as much as anyone else. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 28 percent of abortions in the United States are obtained by women who identify themselves as Catholic (a disproportionately high rate). Difficulty accessing birth control doesn't stop people from having sex, it just increases the risks when they do. Better coverage equals better access equals fewer risks.
The federal government has long held that if you need health care, you shouldn't die because you cannot pay. Further, Congress finally recognized that good primary care would reduce the economic drag of a system in which citizens' only guaranteed care was in an emergency room.
This bill is bad precedent because if we decide that insurance providers shouldn't have to cover services the state has deemed a duty for similar entities, solely because of their religious affiliation, by the same logic Buddhists ought to be refunded tax dollars they've put towards our Department of Defense.
Now, where's the Dalai Lama?
Drew Cason is a senior majoring in philosophy at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
By DREW CASON