Saturday, April 28, 2012

HHS Mandate: Not Just Religiously Wrong

Ok, ok, ok, ok! I am super-excited about this particular post for a lot of reasons:

  1. Makes me realize that maybe I should have been a Poli Sci major instead of Biology, but still pre-med.
  2. Talks about some things that we've discussed in my American Constitutional Development course.
  3. The HHS contraception mandate is not just religiously and more morally wrong, but unconstitutional.
  4. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is a BAYLOR BEAR! How awesome is that? Flinging that green and gold afar!

See the video of Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina (Baylor alum and a Baptist =)) rip into Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services (a "supposed" Catholic, but judging from the video...I'm not sure where she got her education) regarding the HHS mandate on contraception after the jump.




Woo! For those of you who didn't catch that, religious freedom, a fundamental right, falls under the strictest scrutiny when judging its constitutionality.

Now, in the hopes that my American Constitutional Development professor would just happen upon this blog, and maybe give me extra credit (lol), here are the three Supreme Court cases that Rep. Gowdy references (disclaimer: these are links to Wikipedia, but its good for quick information):

Of course, these are not the only cases dealing with religious freedom. Also, as some of you may note, not all cases that involved religious freedom were won. Greatest example: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. However, the state did have compelling interest in this case, that being the prohibition of drugs. Even though the use of peyote for Native American rituals was considered religious, the state still had significant interest in denying benefits on this ground. Another, less familiar case was City of Boerne v. Flores, this one involving the Catholic Bishop of San Antonio wanting to refurbish an old church located in a historic district. Zoning laws that prohibited building or construction in a historic district prevented him from doing so. It was challenged, but Bishop Flores eventually lost. Not necessarily because the state had a compelling state interest, but because preventing the refurbishing a church does not constitute  a violation of the free exercise of religion. It should be noted, however, that in 2000, the government passed a law allowing for the exemption of religious buildings to be refurbished even in a historic district. 

Now, if the Catholic Church started saying that they needed/wanted to use marijuana during Mass to heighten the religious experience, then the government could say no. But that's not the case. Contraception is in direct violation of religious belief and morality. It's not about a building, but convictions and consciences. In all the cases that Rep. Gowdy mentioned, the state had no compelling interest in its actions. In all those cases, the government fell under the strictest scrutiny, and had been found wanting. School, animal sacrifice, license plates, and even teachers were all considered more important than the government. 

I know this might seem premature, but I believe that the Supreme Court will strike this mandate down when it goes into effect. I have the greatest confidence in that. Judicial precedence is a powerful thing, and in this case, it's on our side. 

I think my prof would be proud of me. Lol. Hopefully, I do well on the final. 

On a final note, it makes me even more proud to be a Baylor Bear, especially knowing that Rep. Trey Gowdy is a distinguished alum. Maybe Secretary Sebelius should have taken an American Constitutional Development class at Baylor, instead of Lord knows where (Trinity Washington University, for those of you wondering. Unfortunately, this is a Catholic university, and as much as I hate to say it, if I were administrators there, I would not put Sebelius on my distinguished alumni page). When taking a government job, it helps to know a little bit about the government. 

We must stand against this injustice. And we must pray for the strength to do so, as well as a conversion of hearts. 

Dominus vobiscum. 



No comments:

Post a Comment