For years progressives in the United States have
been stating that the Republicans and their platform simply don't change over
time. That back to the time of Reagan
and in certain respects back to Hoover and even before him to McKinley, the GOP
has been the party of the rich and the Corporate Power. That since Reagan, their platform, dressed up
to be sure, has been focused on tax cuts for the rich, the destruction of the
pitiful "safety net" that the US has for its poor, the turning back of the
clock on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the repeal of environmental,
labor, financial markets and workplace regulation, in more recent times joined
by a heavy emphasis on using the government to enforce particular
religion-based positions on such matters as abortion rights, who can marry
whom, the uses of stem-cell research. And so and so forth.
And then an issue bursts on the political scene, an
issue that was thought to have been settled by a Supreme Court decisions back
in the 1960s, the issue of the private use of contraceptives (see Griswold v.
Connecticut, 1965). Now it happens that
in the current context, whether non-church or closely church-related Catholic
institutions can be required to provide full health insurance coverage for
contraceptives is not a matter of religious freedom but rather of employment discrimination
(as we shall explain briefly at the end of this column). But here, with a full-throated roar, the
Republican Party and their Catholic Bishops wing are making a stand for the Separation
of Church and State in no uncertain terms.
(Yes indeed, the Catholic bishops do make a practice of making their
views known on electoral matters from time-to-time, despite the tax exemptions
granted to Houses of Worship. When they
do, they almost invariably come out for Republicans.)
Hurrah for them, for they are in the process of
changing the whole national debate on such matters as abortion and gay
marriage. Although, as noted, they have
mis-interpreted the issue of what must be included in health insurance packages
as a matter of religious freedom for the Catholic health care institutions, by
so doing they have made as strongly as anyone could the arguments in favor of
the protection of abortion rights, gay marriage legalization, contraceptive use
without interference from the government, and the carrying out of stem cell
research without government interference as to the use of the cells and the
products of research carried out upon them.
Just listen, if you will (or can stand it one might say), to the
speeches of Romney, Santorum, Boehner, Peggy Noonan, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al
(and there is a very big "al"), on the matter.
There they are, striking out for religious freedom on a wide range of
practices.
Now, how so? First as to abortion rights. Since Roe v. Wade, (unfortunately in my view)
the "pro-choice" forces have carried the battle forth solely on the basis of "protecting
a woman's right to choose." That is an
important argument, but a more fundamental than it is the right to hold the
religious/secular position that life begins at some time other than conception,
up to the time of viability. This is one
of the vital principles upon which Roe v. Wade rests, by both men and women. In fact, the position that the GOP has held
up to now is that not only does life begin at the moment of conception but that
any other religious/secular belief, about the matter, whether held by women or
men, is to be criminalized.
Thus at its base, the matter of freedom-of-choice
in the outcome of pregnancy, up until the time of viability, is a fundamental
matter of the freedom of religious/secular belief that is the Constitutional right
of all persons, not just pregnant women.
This right is fully protected by the provisions of the First Amendment,
to wit: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Thus, fundamentally, since the
so-called "pro-life" position is very clearly made on the basis of a particular
interpretation of a particular version of the Bible and is widely preached upon
by religious leaders of a variety of faiths (as they are fully entitled to do,
in the persuasive sense), the right to an abortion is a matter falling under
the First Amendment.
There could not be a greater example of the interference
of "big government" in the lives of ordinary Americans than what has been the
GOP position on abortion rights almost since the day after Roe v. Wade was
handed down. And here is the GOP all of
a sudden trumpeting the position (incorrectly in the particular instance) that
the decision of the Obama Administration on insurance coverage for contraception
violates the First Amendment and separation of church and state. One can say only: "Hallelujah. They have seen the light."
Obviously similar arguments apply to the right of
two people to marry under existing civil law, regardless of their sexual
orientation (the opposition being based on purely religious grounds), the right
to use contraceptives without interference on religious grounds (a right that
Rick Santorum would like to allow states to eliminate, going back to
pre-Griswold v. Connecticut times), and the right for stem cell research to be
carried under the usual government regulations regarding biological research
and the right of people who would like to take advantage of the results of that
research to do so without religiously-based government interference.
My-oh-my.
Cannot wait to see the GOP volte face on this one. "You'll be waiting a long time, until hell
freezes over," you say? The GOP cannot
see the utter contradiction in the position that it is suddenly taking on a
matter which they (totally incorrectly) characterize as one of religious
liberty when it is rather a matter of employment discrimination, you say? Well, it seems to me that the position I have
taken above is the only logical conclusion one can draw from the GOP passion on
this issue. They have suddenly
discovered the First Amendment; they have suddenly discovered that David Barton
and his "there is no wall of separation" position has no basis in historical fact;
they have suddenly come out in favor of religious liberty, which surely does
apply to abortion rights, gay marriage rights, the use of contraceptives, and
stem cell research. Once again, I must say
"Hallelujah."
Oh yes, on the employment discrimination
issue. Given that no Catholic
institution itself would be required under the law to provide abortion or
contraceptive services (such a requirement would indeed violate their First
Amendment rights), to deny insurance coverage for those of their employees,
Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who use contraceptive services, is to
discriminate against such employees, based on Catholic religious position of
those institutions. If that were to be
allowed, next thing you know, an institution that follows Michelle Bachmann's
belief that immunization causes mental retardation, perhaps couched in
religious terms, could be allowed to eliminate coverage for immunization
services. And there you go, right down
that slippery slope. So once again, hurrah
for the GOP. They have made the case for
separation of church and state in matters of religious/secular belief so
clear. I just wonder what took them so
long.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** I wrote the above column on Feb. 13, 2012. On the 14th I received a
communication from Moveon.org stating that Republican Sen. Roy Blunt has
introduced legislation that would permit any employer to deny coverage for any
health service to which they would claim a religious or moral objection. And there I thought that in this column I was
making a sort of joke. But these
Republican Religious Authoritarians are not funny.