In line with the fight against the controversial mandate for the inclusion of birth control in insurance plans, the Wheaton College administrators halted the provision of health insurance for its students. In the same way, Hobby Lobby which is an art and craft organization dropped its health care coverage for its employees. Its owners argued that the mandate violates the company’s right to exercise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as well as the First Amendment to the US Constitution (Blackman, 93). As a result, the court favored Hobby Lobby based on the precept that “a family-owned corporation could not be forced to offer contraception coverage for its employees” (Pashman, n.p). In my opinion, these two institutions, together with other organizations that refuse to offer birth control coverage are behaving ethically.
The Mandate Forces the Institutions Towards Immoral Practice
The enforcement of the birth control is by itself a mandate that forces the institutions towards an immoral practice. The health insurance coverage has been implemented and accepted by organizations without so much question. However, the inclusion of the birth control coverage is a controversial subject that should not burden the owners and management of any institution. In instances where the management may not feel comfortable with a certain policy that contradict their religious views, then steps should be taken so as not to violate their rights. It should be noted that the RFRA provides that the law should not enforce policies that may substantially compromise an individuals religious faith. The enforcement of the law should only be mandated in the least restrictive manner and in instances where there is a compelling government interest. Short of these circumstances, the government cannot compel an entity, its management and its owners in taking actions that contradict their religious beliefs.
People who do not favor the use of contraceptives, argue that its use, contradicts the natural law, hence their objection against the inclusion of birth control in the health care coverage. The process of conception is a natural occurrence that is likely to happen during sexual intercourse, and the formation of the embryo should not be prevented. For example, the use of intrauterine devices, pills and other unnatural means to prevent pregnancy is a violation of religious views. Specifically, contraceptives that prevent the attachment of the fertilized egg in the uterus intrudes upon the religious faith of many institutions because this process is considered as a form of abortion.
Violation of Rights Based on the First Amendment to the Constitution
The birth control mandate has not only forced many institutions to implement policies that work against their belief. That is, the policy is also a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution that specifically point the freedom in the exercise of religion. Organizations that refuse to abide by the inclusion of birth control policies are behaving ethically because they are clearly exercising their freedom to practice their religious faith. The concept about the freedom to exercise religion freedom is not only applicable to churches, but also for other organizations. There was an imposed penalty for business institutions that refuse to grant birth control coverage to women employees, and this is burdensome to the operation of the entity. Moreover, the government is not justified in enforcing the policy because there is no compelling reason to do so.
The government argued that the mandate to include birth control coverage in the insurance is not a violation of the RFRA. Moreover, some people who are in favor of the mandate claimed that it is not a violation of the constitution because it is not enforcing a new insurance policy. That is, the mandate was designed to ride on the existing health insurance coverage policy, and the directive is considered as “hardly a burdensome requirement” (Pashman, n.p). In addition to that, the policy plays a significant role in reducing the social problems such as unwanted pregnancy.
Nevertheless, a closer examination will show that institutions that do not comply with the policy to include birth control in their health insurance policies are behaving ethically. Their non-compliance should not be construed as a sheer willingness to disobey the law. Their religious position should be taken into consideration, especially that the mandate fails to satisfy the conditions where the policy must be one that is of compelling government interest, and in the least restrictive manner. While the government’s argument is founded on the basis of its advocacy to provide accessibility of contraceptives to the public, it is causing ethical problems since the policy restricts the employers' freedom to exercise their religion.
Different institutions have the right to practice their religious beliefs, and this includes not having to conform to certain policies that may contradict their faith. There is nothing wrong with the birth control program, but organizations must be given the liberty to consider their options, rather than being forced to adapt the policy. It is ethical for institutions to demonstrate non-compliance since the laws was contemplated and implemented without a deeper examination of its consequences to the public.
Works Cited
Blackman, Josh. Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Pashman, Manya. "Wheaton College Ends Coverage Amid Fight Against Birth Control Mandate." Chicago Tribune, 2017, www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wheaton-college-ends-student-insurance-met-20150728-story.html.
