Contraception mandate applies to business: Our view

The Editorial Board | USATODAY

Controversy over ObamaCare isn't news, but any intrusion into deeply held religious beliefs is particularly contentious, and just such a dispute is underway.

Over the last year, the Affordable Care Act has phased in a requirement that most health insurance plans give women access to FDA-approved contraception methods, including birth control pills and the "morning after pill." The law is right to require this: The Institute of Medicine and common sense say contraception is basic health care for women, and the prevention of unplanned pregnancies can cut abortion rates and give women a better chance at education, work and planning family size.

That said, some faiths oppose all birth control, and others object chiefly to methods such as the morning-after pill, which they say cause the equivalent of abortions.

From the outset, the administration exempted churches from the contraception mandate, acknowledging that government can't compel them to violate their faith. But it did not go far enough. Under huge pressure, the administration belatedly added a workaround for church-affiliated organizations that is still controversial, but which has been accepted by institutions such as Georgetown University and the Catholic Hospital Association.

That's just part of the battle, however. Devoutly religious owners of private businesses also demanded exemptions, and when the administration refused to budge, they went to court. Dozens of lawsuits are pending, and two federal appeals courts have ruled in opposite ways.

The question is not easy. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom commands great deference, but it's also true that religious freedom has never meant that national policies must be written to conform to religious doctrine.

Over the years, plaintiffs have demanded religious exemptions from laws on racial equality, the military draft, paying taxes, child neglect, drug use, animal cruelty and more. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said no, drawing a line between laws that explicitly target or place a substantial burden on a religion and those that impose broad, secular requirements on society that people might find religiously objectionable.

In weighing an Oregon ban on the use of peyote, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia declined to uphold its use in Native American religious ceremonies, saying the court has "never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law."

In a case that tested whether Amish business owners could claim an exemption from Social Security taxes, the court noted that the plaintiffs had freely chosen to run a secular business and could not claim exemptions unavailable to other businesses. Further, granting an exemption would "impose the employer's religious faith on the employees," the court said.

Ultimately, the issue is one of balance. The effect of health insurance on business owners is indirect. Employees may or may not use insurance to pay for birth control, just as they may or may not use their salary to pay for something that would violate the company owners' faith.

The circumstance might be discomforting. But the alternative — granting religious exemptions to private organizations — is more troubling. It would be open to abuse, putting the government in the position of determining which business owners were sufficiently religious.

That is an outcome neither side should want.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.