EEOC: The Pill more important than religious liberty

Davis, there have been several dozen additions since you responded to my post, but let me briefly note that freedom of association DOES mean the right to set your own standards, as long as you don't overly violate a law. For example, the St. Patrick's Day Parade organizers don't legally HAVE to accept an "Irish Gay and Lesbian" contingent, because that would not be "equal opportunity," it would be coercive intrusion on the parade organizers' speech and message - David Souter wrote that decision, by the way. (In my seldom humble opinion, the GLBT crowd should have simply called themselves the "Sir Roger Casement Brigade" and who could have turned them down them?) Likewise, the Boy Scouts don't have to accept a gay scoutmaster, because they can choose their own expressive message, no matter what Justice Stevens may think about it.

Freedom of association is not infringed by civil rights law UNLESS the organization acquires a public or commercial purpose. The Jaycees were required to admit women because so much business was transacted through the network of the club, but the Mormon Church didn't have to admit people with dark skin until their leader came down from the tower of the tabernacle to announce a vision from God saying it was all right.

There is legitimate question whether Belmont College made itself quasi-public to qualify for federal funding, in which case, no, they can't have it both ways. But strictly private association does not have to qualify with civil rights laws which either regulate interstate commerce, or are based on denial of federal funding.

Religious employers, per se, do not have a right to impose their religion on employees, as I explicitly stated. IF this college has retained its status as an exclusively religious institution, then it may have some ground to stand on. Catholic Charities cannot do that, however, no law may require the Roman church to accept women as priests. The status of employees of a college may fall one way or the other.

Wow, there's a lot to respond to. I am on vacation this week and may have limited access to the internet.

Thomas R., I know that Orthodox Church in general does not have a strict policy against contraception. Some Orthodox churches do tolerate them, but I have seen statements from the Patriarch of Moscow that he does consider contraception to be immoral. Make of that what you will. Some Hindus, most particularly Gandhi, also disagreed with contraception. (To be fair, he also disagreed with modern medicine, and with _sex_ in general, as did Tolstoy).

Erin, you say that birth control need not be 'free'. It wouldn't be free in any case- someone would be paying for it, i.e. the government. However, in the case of other medical services (and things like housing, food, etc.) the government does have a responsibility to ensure that those things are available to those who need them, regardless of income. I think the same should be true of birth control. Believe me, I'm not out to deny you your religious freedom for its own sake. I think that doctors should be free not to prescribe birth control, and to encourage women to have as many children as they can; pharmacists should be free not to sell them; employers should be free not to pay for them. I might choose not to do business with any of those people, but they should have the legal right. My interest in the government paying for contraceptives is simply that women should have access to them, that no one should not be able to afford them because of poverty- and also, that the government not be seen as endorsing your specific doctrinal viewpoint which I think is wrong. I think the right to control one's fertility, to a certain limited extent, is a basic human right that people should not be denied because of their income. I've worked in a country before where many women were too poor to afford birth control. Such is not generally the case in the US- I hope that it never is. When and if this is a country where contraceptives are generally affordable enough that any woman who wants them can afford them, then I'll agree that there is no pressing need for the government to subsidize and insure them. I will have to look up some numbers on how much they cost today.

As for my views on condoms vs. the Pill- well that would be a long discussion. Suffice it to say that I think that the Pill and other hormonal methods are licit, in part, because they rely on hormonal methods of fertility suppression that are naturally present in the human body, and because I consider hormonal methods tp be analogous to an extension of the naturally infertile period associated with pregnancy. There's nothing analogous to condoms or other barrier methods in nature, and they physically separate and detract from the unity of the partners in a way that hormonal methods don't, in my opinion. Additionally condoms can be used to further promiscuous, casual sex much more easily than the Pill, which as you point out doesn't protect from disease. There's certainly a role for condoms, e.g. when one partner in a long term relationship has an STD, but in general I do think they're more morally problematic.

One last thing- while I disagree with the arguments against birth control (and against premarital sex, and gay sex too), I do try to take them seriously and charitably, and not to misinterpret, malign or mock them (which would be rather easy to do). It would be nice if you'd do the same for the arguments of those you disagree with. Feel free, though, to be as mocking as you choose. It's a free country, after all.