March for Life stands up for religious liberty, opposes O’care HHS mandate

banner from 2013 March for Life in DC
banner from 2013 March for Life in DC

The national March for Life is organized by a nonprofit business of the same name, which is one of many groups challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate (also known as the HHS mandate) in court. March for Life recently prevailed in federal court. Yesterday, the Obama Administration – specifically, the Secretaries of the Treasury and Health and Human Services – filed an appeal.

And by the way, what’s the Treasury secretary doing signing on to the appeal against March for Life? Is that a heavy-handed way of serving notice that the March’s tax-exempt status is on the line here?

This Administration can’t stand the thought of a business owner not paying for or subsidizing an employee’s contraception insurance coverage (with no co-pay), even if that “contraception” is actually abortifacient. Further, the Administration can’t stand challenges from people who believe in the right to live out religious beliefs seven days a week, not just freedom to worship one hour a week. When the Hobby Lobby decision came down, exempting a narrow group of business owners from the mandate, Obamacare apologists whined that employers were making birth control decisions for employees. “Not my boss’s business,” was the cry.

Here’s a cry right back: Not my boss’s problem – and a co-pay isn’t a war.

CAM00569The Washington Times has a brief story about the Administration’s appeal in the March for Life case. The story quotes the federal judge whose ruling in favor of March for Life – the ruling the Administration seeks to overturn – is at issue: “HHS may be correct that this objection [to the mandate] is common among religiously affiliated employers. Where HHS has erred, however, is in assuming that this trait is unique to such organizations. It is not.”

Hobby Lobby should have settled that question. The company isn’t a religious organization, but its owners have religious beliefs that they refuse to shelve in order to accommodate the mandate.

This all started when “contraception” was classified as a preventive service under Obamacare, with no co-pay for the user, and with coverage required under health insurance policies. Why suppression of women’s fertility should be such a federal priority is an argument the President has never successfully made to me. Our federal government is spending money litigating against not only March for Life but other people as well – Little Sisters of the Poor, for example – in a an effort to get them to buy in, literally, to that misplaced priority.

The federal government can litigate indefinitely if the Chief Executive so chooses. Must be nice. The March for Life and fellow mandate resisters aren’t in that position, many of them relying on public interest law firms which themselves rely on donor support. David vs. Goliath, of course.

A few days before the Hobby Lobby decision, I posted “Why Sue Over the Mandate?”

Why not just go along? Because religious liberty matters. It’s not simply a matter of worship, taking place in a building once a week. The mandate forces the question of how Americans may exercise their beliefs in everyday life. If an American holds the religiously-based belief that contraception and abortion are immoral, can that American be forced to pay for them? How about a business owner who wants to provide employees with health insurance, but on religious grounds wants no part of helping fund contraception and abortion as “preventive care”?

Now, more than a year after the limited but welcome Hobby Lobby victory, those questions are still hanging.

Affirming nonviolence, then and now

Kneeling Ministers, in Birmingham's Kelly Ingram Park, a civil rights memorial. The George F. Landegger Collection of Alabama Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith's America, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.
Kneeling Ministers, in Birmingham’s Kelly Ingram Park, a civil rights memorial. The George F. Landegger Collection of Alabama Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

In 1963, a few months before Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington, he and many other civil rights activists converged on Birmingham, Alabama to challenge racial segregation. Their campaign was marked by intensive planning and discipline, because the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was intent not only on a message but on delivering it the right way. Volunteers for the Birmingham campaign were screened and trained, as King recounted in Why We Can’t Wait. He noted, “Every volunteer was required to sign a Commitment Card.”

To what did the Birmingham activists commit?

I hereby pledge myself – my person and body – to the nonviolent movement. Therefore I will keep the following ten commandments:

  1. Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
  2. Remember always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation – not victory.
  3. Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love.
  4. Pray daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
  5. Sacrifice personal wishes in order that all men might be free.
  6. Observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
  7. Seek to perform regular service for others and for the world.
  8. Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.
  9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
  10. Follow the directions of the movement and of the captain of the demonstration

King added, “We made it clear that we would not send anyone out to demonstrate who had not convinced himself and us that he could accept and endure violence without retaliating” during the campaign. That took guts. It meant putting aside the natural right of self-defense during the demonstration, even as they faced people who had no qualms about using violence, including bombs.

True, Anyone could sign a piece of paper (or in this age, click on “I agree”). So why bother? Because, then and now, nonviolence during a public demonstration isn’t something to take for granted. Public affirmation reinforces personal commitment. Public affirmation is part of accountability to the larger community. It draws a clear line between those protesting peacefully and those willing to resort to violence to impede them.

Today, 40 Days for Life campaigns challenge abortion and affirm the right to life. The founders of 40DFL are Christian, and the program is grounded in Christian spirituality and a commitment to nonviolence. One requirement for participants is signing the 40DFL statement of peace. Without that commitment, one is not a participant, even if standing on the sidewalk outside an abortion facility during a 40 DFL campaign. Here it is.

I testify to the following:

  • I will only pursue peaceful solutions to the violence of abortion when volunteering with the 40 Days for Life campaign
  • I will show compassion and reflect Christ’s love to all abortion facility or Planned Parenthood employees, volunteers, and customers
  • I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life campaign
  • I am in no way associated with Planned Parenthood, its affiliates or any abortion provider

While standing in the public right-of-way in front of the abortion facility or Planned Parenthood location:

  • I will not obstruct the driveways or sidewalk while standing in the public right of way
  • I will not litter on the public right-of-way
  • I will closely attend to any children I bring to the prayer vigil
  • I will not threaten, physically contact, or verbally abuse abortion facility or Planned Parenthood employees, volunteers or customers
  • I will not damage private property
  • I will cooperate with local authorities

As I sign on once again for 40DFL – for the Statement of Peace must be reaffirmed with each new campaign – I want to take the Birmingham commitment to heart as well. There are no doubt those who will take umbrage at any suggestion that today’s pro-life movement is part of the civil rights movement that came to flower at that March on Washington in ’63. In reply, I can only avow that life is the fundamental civil and human right. Abortion takes lives, and there are businesses that profit from it. Let peaceful public witness to that continue.

I don’t pretend to have endured the physical abuse to which the Birmingham demonstrators were subjected. Their example is awesome even fifty years on. They faced police dogs and fire hoses, and still made a commitment to nonviolent public witness and action. The best way for me to honor their memory is to emulate them, even though I’ve faced nothing worse so far than name-calling.

Recall that the nonviolent demonstrators in Birmingham were far from passive. There was urgency in their goal of justice and reconciliation. From a 1963 UPI report on the Birmingham demonstrations: “King reacted strongly, however, to a statement by Attorney General Robert Kennedy suggesting that the all-out integration drive here was ill-timed. ‘I grow weary of those who ask us to slow down,’ King told a reporter. ‘I begin to feel that the moderates in America are our worst enemy.'”

The events and words of 1963 aren’t frozen in place, devoid of application to our own times. View them not as an archaeologist views a dig, but as a traveler views a map: take this path, not that one. I could do worse than follow the people who signed those cards in Birmingham.

Six weeks to next 40DFL campaign

The next 40 Days for Life campaign begins September 23, and signups are open. For more information on the Manchester NH campaign, go to 40daysforlife.com/Manchester. You can follow their Facebook page at facebook.com/4Odaysforlife [that’s a capital “O” next to the 4].

Download (PDF, 496KB)


 

Quite a Fortnight, with more religious-liberty questions than before

It’s appropriate, no matter which side one supports, that the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage came down during Fortnight for Freedom. It also came just a couple of days after this blog linked to a provocative speech on the difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion.

Liberty Bell replica, New Hampshire State House (E. Kolb photo)
Liberty Bell replica, New Hampshire State House (E. Kolb photo)

The marriage decision seems to bump into that difference. Here’s something from Justice Kennedy’s opinion, addressing dissenters from the decision. Substitute “abortion rights” or “contraceptive mandate” for “same-sex marriage” and see how it sounds. This statement is now part of constitutional law. If it applies to differing beliefs about marriage, it ought to apply to other issues as well.

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. 

So if “it must be emphasized,” I’ll do so:

…religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocateThe First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths …

So does “proper protection” mean protecting freedom of worship or freedom of religion? Do “advocate” and “teach” refer to speech and action in the public square, or merely the right to advocate and teach within the walls of a house of worship or a private home?  Just how does all this translate into the daily give-and-take of civic action?

It’s not lawyers who have to make these decisions in the first instance. Ordinary citizens (and I count myself as one) going about their business day-to-day are the ones wondering if they have what the Court calls proper protection. It’s fitting that long before the marriage decision came down, the country’s Catholic bishops chose “freedom to bear witness” as the theme of this year’s Fortnight for Freedom.

Marriage

The Fourteenth Amendment now covers marriage between any two consenting adults. The First Amendment covers religion (or is it worship?), presumably including the religions that hold to one-man-one-woman marriage. So what happens when lawsuits and criminal charges are filed against business owners who decline on religious grounds to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies? Early signs are not encouraging for the business owners. One can take either side of the proposition that Jesus would bake the cake, and still see that for the people who are now marriage dissenters, Justice Kennedy’s reassurance that they may “advocate” for their view is a little shaky.

Abortion

Abortion rights rest on a “penumbra” of constitutional rights adding up by some judicial calculus to “privacy.” Abortion dissenters have the First Amendment, including, for those who so choose, a right to pray outside abortion facilities – or do they? New Hampshire legislators seeking to discourage pro-life presence outside abortion businesses could have resorted to any of several methods that have been found to be constitutional. Instead, in 2014, with the full cooperation of the governor, the legislature made it illegal for most people regardless of intention or behavior to stand on public property outside an abortion facility for any reason, at times and locations to be determined by the abortion facilities’ management. Legislators actually left the interpretation and implementation of the buffer zone law up to abortion providers.

To the surprise of no one but the law’s sponsors, the law has been enjoined by a federal judge. It has not yet had a full hearing in court. It’s still on the books, and a repeal effort failed this year. I have yet to hear any of the buffer zone’s fans in New Hampshire announce a change of heart on the basis of Justice Kennedy’s assurance that advocacy of dissent may continue. What’s to stop any legislative body from following New Hampshire’s egregious example of supporting a law to suppress peaceful demonstrations?

The HHS mandate

Obamacare’s HHS/contraceptive mandate is in place, buffeted but not bowed. The President and the members of Congress who passed Obamacare allowed HHS regulations to define contraception as “preventive care.” There are people who own businesses and who out of religious belief do not wish to participate in the provision of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to female employees. In the face of the HHS regulations enforcing the Affordable Care Act, they hold the dissenting view that women aren’t broken and that it’s not “preventive care” for women to be chemically altered. The Administration has issued accommodations in a piecemeal manner to certain institutions dissenting from the mandate, and Hobby Lobby won at the Supreme Court on behalf of owners of closely-held businesses.

Yet litigation goes on, because religious institutions still must wait for a determination that they’re religious enough to be covered under one of the Administrations “accommodations,” and it’s still an open question whether those accommodations are adequate. Are owners of public-stock corporations going to be accommodated? Fines will be punitive for anyone who dissents, sues, and loses. Are dissenting business owners being given proper protection for their advocacy of their beliefs? Or so Justice Kennedy’s words mean must that advocacy remain private?

The Court majority that gave us Obergefell left Americans with much to think about beyond a definition of marriage. At the end of another Fortnight for Freedom, only days after a landmark Supreme Court decision, the religious-liberty landscape remains unsettled. Are Justice Kennedy’s words true reassurance that each American is free to exercise a religion, publicly as well as privately?

There’s a way to divert attention from this question: call marriage dissenters bigots. Say that people opposed to the Affordable Care Act want to deny health care to their neighbors. Claim that opponents of buffer zones are endangering women (never mind that six of the seven plaintiffs challenging the New Hampshire buffer zone law are women). Say anything – just keep that pesky First Amendment offstage.

Justice Kennedy won’t let me. He says the First Amendment gives us all proper protection. We have yet to see what that means.

Life & marriage & equal protection

You may have heard that the Supreme Court handed down a significant decision today regarding marriage. Like everyone else, I have an opinion.

manhattandeclaration1) I have endorsed the Manhattan Declaration and will continue to do so.

2) I’m Catholic, and I’m with Pope Francis (among others) on this one.

3) Five justices agreed that marriage between two consenting adults is a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, I’ll continue to work toward the day when we can muster five judges to agree that the right to life is a matter of equal protection as well.

Peace to all, whether you agree with or dissent from the Court.