The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has decided that Belmont Abbey College, a Roman Catholic institution in North Carolina, discriminated against women by refusing to pay for contraception under the college’s health benefits plan, reports the Gaston Gazette. The federal agency also found that the college had retaliated against faculty members who complained about the policy, and invited both sides in the dispute to join it in reaching a resolution.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
7 Responses to Federal Agency Finds Belmont Abbey College Discriminated Against Women
greeneyeshade - August 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Separation of church and state cuts both ways. Dictating to a Church what its moral stance must be is, in effect, the state establishing its values in place of what the church believes. That’s exactly what the 1st Amendment was set up to prevent.
exportlaw - August 10, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I have been following this case. Although the college sometimes talks about abortions this case is really only about prescription contraceptives i.e. “the pill.” The faculty wants to keep “the pill” as a benefit in their health plan, the college wants to remove it.
exportlaw - August 10, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Greeenyshade, you missed the point.
Counterpoint one: This case is about religious practices not beliefs. Religious beliefs are absolutely protected by the law, you can believe anything you want. However, religious practices are, should be, and must be, regulated by the law. Otherwise, a church that believed in human sacrifice could get away with murder.
Counterpoint two: Laws are made by elected legislatures and not churches. That is what separates us from places like Iran. In a civil society churches may openly disagree with the law but must still comply. Most churches disagree with some legal policy or other, but they must obey the law.
whitedebraj - August 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You should also follow the litigation cases piling up against ASU. There are many many many costing the state millions. When Michael Crow wants someone out, they are out. Of course faculty and employees fight back and often win big time as happened at Columbia. But the big dog carries a mean bite.
exportlaw - August 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Also it should be noted that the EEOC made its decision on the basis of gender, not religious discrimination. The ruling said, in effect, that if the college cover men’s health problems, for example, medicine to treat an enlarged prostate, it should also cover medicine unique to women, such as birth control pills. That way it is fair to both genders. It is the same as if the government said that it is unfair to offer treatment for a disease frequently suffered by Hispanic persons but not for another disease usually suffered by Black persons.
new_theologian - August 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I have three points. First, free exercise of religion is not restricted to holding to a system of belief. It includes practice, and acting in accord with the tenets of the conviction. The standard employed by the courts in weighing this right against the vested interest of the state has been notoriously strict. True, the State forbids human sacrifice, but the line is far closer to human sacrifice than it is to the politically correct standard that says, “believe what you want, but keep it to yourself.” I don’t think that the State’s interest in artificial contraception would pass constitutional muster if Belmont Abbey College took this thing all the way to the top. My second point is that, the EEOC’s finding is objectively wrong, since the refusal to cover oral contraceptives is not an isolated matter. Also included in the refused coverage is vasectomy, which only men can get. The EEOC’s finding seems, to me, to rest upon the bigoted assertion that reproductive matters are purely the concern of women, not men–that men are not affected by the consequences of sexual activity, and thus have no personal interest in the question of contraception, even where it involves mutilating their own organs (as in the case of vasectomy). My final point is that, to argue against the exclusion of oral contraceptives from an insurance policy on the ground that women would be denied treatment for other health-related problems is dubious, indeed. Even the Catholic Church very clearly distinguishes between the use of a chemical for contraceptive purposes and the use of the same chemical for non-contraceptive purposes. Under the principle of “double-effect” or “unintended consequence,” the same medicine can be used, say, to shrink an ovarian cyst, or to treat other problems, without the intention of rendering the woman sterile as a result. She may be sterile while under this treatment, but she would be treated for the disease even if she were not involved in a sexual relationship. Temporary sterility is an “unintended consequence” of treating a disease affecting the reproductive system. No one is objecting to this kind of coverage on Catholic grounds, I assure you. I would be shocked if insurance companies would not recognize this distinction just as clearly as the Catholic Church does.
drtimothy - August 12, 2009 at 8:16 am
New theologian…..of course.