How Left and Right Flipped on Religious FreedomPosted: March 29, 2014
W. James Antle III writes: Was contraception illegal in 2010? Were people unable to purchase birth-control pills without the consent of their employers?
The answer to these questions is no, despite the repeated insistences that the Supreme Court would bring about this state of affairs by ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the Obamacare contraception mandate.
In fact, Hobby Lobby’s owners only object to being required to cover four of the twenty mandated contraceptives. They argue that they do not wish to be complicit in providing abortion-inducing drugs. But the same people who want to “ban bossy” now speak as if accommodating a religious for-profit employer necessitates overturning Griswold v. Connecticut.
Liberals have come a long way since 1993, when they helped pass—and Bill Clinton signed—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Back then, they were willing to endorse the principle that the government must have a compelling interest in making a person act contrary to her religious conscience—and even then, government must use the least coercive means to further that interest.
[W. James Antle III’s book, Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? is available at Amazon]
Whatever the First Amendment implications of the Hobby Lobby case, it is impossible to argue the contraception mandate meets that test. Large swathes of the American public are already exempt from the mandate, so how compelling could the government interest be? Second, there are ways to make birth control more accessible to women without making religious people pay for it.
Several things have changed in the last twenty-one years. First, the issue that helped give rise to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was the sacramental use of peyote by a Native American church. The Supreme Court upheld an Oregon law forbidding peyote, with conservative Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion and liberal Harry Blackmun of Roe v. Wade fame authoring the dissent.
Note that both the specific freedom in question and the plaintiff in the case were likely to arouse liberal sympathies. Not so traditionalist Catholics who don’t want to subsidize contraception or evangelicals who don’t want to photograph a same-sex wedding. (One could argue these different circumstances play a role in conservatives taking a different position too.)
White liberals have also become more secular in the last two decades. In 2012, Barack Obama carried 62 percent of voters who never attend church while Mitt Romney took just 34 percent. Liberal mainline Protestant churches have long been in decline. A press release from religious leaders defending the contraception mandate is signed mainly by members of these traditions.
Among a few liberals, this has resulted in an almost comical inability to comprehend what religious practice really entails beyond attendance at worship services or prayer. Others simply view religious people as conservative political opponents with misguided, perhaps even evil and bigoted, views….Read more….
W. James Antle III is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?
Image: Wikimedia Commons/BryanCalabro. CC BY-SA 3.0.
- We Must Support Religious Liberty by Supporting Hobby Lobby (gopthedailydose.com)
- Support Religious Liberty by Supporting Hobby Lobby (breitbart.com)
- Liberal Senator Barbara Boxer Deceives In Hobby Lobby Case (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
- Should Libertarians Support Religious Exceptions to Generally Applicable Laws? (reason.com)
- Littwin: The ‘war on women’ will get hotter (coloradoindependent.com)
- Adding Fuel To The Fire In The War On Women: How The Hobby Lobby Case Could Help Democrats In 2014 Elections (publichealthwatch.wordpress.com)
- Confusion Plagues the Left: Why It Spreads Crippled Views of the Hobby Lobby Case (alternet.org)