Burwell v. Zubik | National Catholic Reporter

Burwell v. Zubik | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The question here is whether taxpayer money can be directly or indirectly used to deny contraceptive coverage to families working for a religious institution because that institution does not wish to be involved in any way with doing the paperwork.  The answer to that - and to the larger question of whether the religious employer can deny coverage at all is no.  It has been no since the EEOC ruled that insurance companies must provide contraception coverage for no additional charge - since December of 2000.



This is not a case of religious freedom - it is a case of the religious power of the religious hierarchy.  If the faithful had been able to vote on this lawsuit, it would have been settled favoring the employees - and the faithful probably would have forced parishes to cover Church office staff.  A decision for the Church on this issue would be a set back on employee law, the concept that law applies to religious institutions (it does) and would be a partial overturning of Griswold v. Connecticut - which is actually what the Church is after - especially since that would be a chink in the armor against abortion precedent.



Of course, the opposite could occur as well.  If the Church is not allowed to put the prejudices and belief's of its hierarchy above a right to be funded for contraception - how can the Congress be allowed to deny abortion funding to any qualified Medicaid recipient in exercising their right to tax supported healthcare?  This is a high risk case, because it could lead to a challenge against the Hyde Amendment, which is a band-aid against legal abortion.  Hopefully some of the Church's lawyers advised them this is so.  Not doing so is legal malpractice.



On the topic of religious exemptions generally, the reality is that the government must draw the line somewhere, especially if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act stays on the books.  Using tax categories is actually quite apt, because it differentiates the likely employees of the religious entity.  Of course, if it were up to me, there would be no such exemptions - because the Church is seeking religious power, not religious freedom.  Especially Chaput.  Valerie Jarrett set a trap and Chaput and Dolan walked right into it.  Their idiocy should not be an excuse to deny coverage to Catholic employee families.