Church vs.

Government Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This excerpt from the first amendment of the United States of America is more commonly understood as separation of church and state, and has been hotly debated ever since its implementation. In 1952 the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not censor movies that were offensive to certain religions. Ten years later they decided prayer of any kind in public school was unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. And in 1979 they determined that government buildings couldnt have nativity sets in their establishments during Christmas season. In these cases, as in the majority of cases, religion was infringing upon the government. But what happens when government infringes upon the rights of religious institutions and its congregation? I think we are about to find out. Tensions have been growing over the past year and Catholic institutions that are prepared to fight a mandate proposed by the Affordable Care Act have set the stage for a Church v. Government showdown. While the Church and religious organizations argue the government is violating the beliefs of their faith, the Obama administration has asked the court to preserve the mandate in question. So what exactly are they arguing over? It is something called The Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate. The Obamacare Contraceptive mandate is a section of the healthcare reform that was designed for the benefit of women employed at non-profit, religious-based organizations seeking contraceptive coverage. Consequently nonprofit, religious affiliated organizations would be required to provide no cost contraceptive coverage to all of their employees. The problem with this policy is that it violates the churchs policies against contraception. A major pillar of the Catholic faith is the belief that the sexual act needs to be both unitive and procreative. Contraception in effect removes the possibility of procreation. The Obama Administration took this conflict into account and decided to exempt churches and houses of worship from the mandate, but to include church-run hospitals and other charities. They also built a separate option for such church-related organizations into the mandate. They can formally certify that contraception goes against their beliefs and in such cases, a third party insurer will cover the employees through separate plans with no involvement of the organization. Although it is a good attempt at compromise, the organizations still feel that their faith is being violated. By certifying that they will not provide contraception coverage and allowing a third party insurer to intervene, they still feel that they are indirectly allowing contraceptive coverage for their employees. The government was willing to compromise through the exemption of churches and houses of worship, but are unwilling to budge on their third party policy. Cases relating to this section of the mandate are turning up all over the nation. This past week one such case was taken to the Supreme Court. At the end of last year, The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns in Denver, filed a lawsuit against the government claiming the contraception coverage requirement violates their beliefs and their freedom of religion and they are also unwilling to allow a third party insurer to cover contraception. The government responded by demanding they either provide coverage or submit to the other proposal because the sisters have, no legal basis to challenge the selfcertification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage. If the Little Sisters of the Poor continued to interfere, they would be required to pay millions in fines for non-compliance. That was until last week. The case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. The Government had been in the Supreme court for weeks before a ruling

was made. It was decided that the Little Sisters of the Poor would be temporarily exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that they felt violated their beliefs. This was a huge victory for the Church and the nuns no longer have to worry about paying the large fines that had been hovering overhead for weeks. Even after this ruling, the battle is long from over. There are many critics that believe the case in and of itself shows the division over the issue among lawmakers. First, the issue was in the courts for weeks. It took a long time for them to make their final decision. Then, when they made their decision they shrugged it off to a third party: the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Court ruled that the nuns would be temporarily exempted from the mandate and not has to certify, however, would also have to write to the Secretary of Health and Human services if they wished to get an extended exemption. The nuns will have to go back before the court in which they will ultimately make a decision on the issue. Until then, the Little Sisters of the poor will not face any non-compliance fines. http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/24/battle-at-the-supreme-court-obama-vs-the-nuns-part-2/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/03/politics/supreme-court-obamacare/