Sunday, February 12, 2012
The HHS mandate is (still) inconsistent with religious freedom
A letter, signed by a hundred or so academics, activists, journalists, clergy, and others, explaining why what is being described in the press as a "compromise" on the HHS mandate does not cure the religious-liberty difficulties with the relevant policy is available here. Those signing include Mary Ann Glendon, John Garvey, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John Cavadini, Robert George, and many others. Check it out.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/the-hhs-mandate-is-still-inconsistent-with-religious-freedom.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I've got a question about the letter, as recently posted by Robert George (who doesn't allow discussion on his posts). Since you're linking to it, I think it's relevant here?
As someone simply trying to understand the moral claims of those who oppose the mandate (and also as someone surprised to see a solution floated and discussed on this blog described as "morally obtuse" -- surely a little bit more charity is due than that?), I have the following question: would the moral issues be resolved if the government levied a tax on all employers, including religious institutions, and used that money to purchase health insurance for all employees of those institutions (insurance that covered contraceptives)?