Religious liberty is the first freedom guaranteed to us as Americans in our Bill of Rights. And for good reason too. The freedom to believe, or hold no religious beliefs at all, is fundamental to our understanding of a free society and has prevented the religious oppression and bloodshed from which many of our European forbearers fled. Certainly, religious liberty is something to celebrate and defend.

But let’s be clear, the rally in Las Cruces planned by the Tea Party, Rep. Pearce and others has nothing to do with religious liberty and everything to do with discriminating against women by denying access to basic healthcare.
These folks are rallying in opposition to the recent Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that requires new health insurance plans to cover birth control, along with other essential preventative services, at no extra out-of-pocket cost. The new rule ensures that millions of women will have access to affordable birth control, something that virtually every American woman uses at some point in her life. This policy represents one of the greatest advancements for women’s health in decades.
Despite the fact that the new rule already exempts churches and other houses of worship, anti-contraception hardliners say this rule violates the religious rights of—for instance—Catholic-affiliated hospitals. It doesn't. Catholic Hospitals are not the same as Catholic Churches, which employ almost exclusively people of the Catholic faith. Catholic Hospitals, public service organizations that benefit from federal funding, employ thousands of people of diverse backgrounds and religious beliefs. The distinction is clear, if a religiously affiliated organization benefits from public funding in the form of tax dollars, it must play by the same rules as everyone else.
Despite the clear fairness and constitutionality of the original rule, President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered a compromise: if a religiously affiliated organization objects to providing contraceptive coverage on moral grounds, insurance companies would be required to provide birth control to employees directly and free of charge. Problem solved. No religiously affiliated organization would be required to provide birth control coverage, and their employees would still have access to essential preventative services.
Groups like Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association (the umbrella organization for the nation’s Catholic Hospitals) and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities all announced their support for the new compromise policy.
But extreme opponents of birth control, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have declared they will not be satisfied until all employers—religious or secular—can refuse to cover any medicine, procedure or treatment that runs contrary to their religious beliefs. This is a very bad way to provide healthcare indeed, resulting in a patchwork of exemptions in which employers could effectively deny coverage to any employee for any reason.
Should a book store operated by a Jehovah’s Witness be allowed to deny an employee coverage for life-saving blood transfusions? Should a tech company owned by a Scientologist be permitted to deny an employee with bipolar disorder coverage for psychiatric help? Is it acceptable for a construction company operated by Christian Scientists, who do not believe in modern medicine at all, to refuse to cover an employee’s cancer treatments?
Religious liberty does not mean organizations that receive federal funding get to deny basic healthcare to their employees or force their religious values on a diverse workforce. Taking a job isn’t the same as joining a church. Religious liberty is, and always has been, about individual choice. Sadly, Saturday’s rally is all about eliminating that freedom, attacking access to women’s essential health care and imposing religious doctrine on others.
Alexandra Freedman Smith
Staff Attorney

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Bloomfield, NM citizens who seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument prominently displayed on the city hall lawn. The lawsuit alleges that the monument is a government endorsement of religion and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as the New Mexico State Constitution.

 
“Individuals, religious communities, and religious associations should be free to post the Ten Commandments as they wish, and the ACLU will defend their right to do so,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “But the government should not decide which religious doctrines it favors and then post them on government property. Government should stay out of the business of religion and avoid choosing some religious beliefs over others.”
 
Beginning in 2007, Bloomfield political leaders began a campaign to circumvent the laws that prohibit government sponsored religious monuments. The city council, on the instigation of then councilor Kevin Mauzy, adopted a resolution allowing for private donation of a Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on the city hall lawn. In July 2011, despite voiced objections from concerned community members, former city councilor Mauzy and his associates erected a large monument featuring the Ten Commandments near the entrance to city hall. On July 4^th, Mauzy presided over a religious and patriotic themed dedication ceremony.

In the complaint, the ACLU of New Mexico shows that the City of Bloomfield accorded preferential treatment to the monument’s sponsors, disregarding many city ordinances and policy requirements that would regulate the monument’s installation. Public records requests also reveal that Mauzy sought and received legal advice on the monument from the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that often advocates for the merging of government and religion.
 
“The problem when government endorses religion is that it inevitably favors one set of beliefs to the disregard of all others,” said ACLU Managing Attorney Laura Schauer Ives. “In this case, Bloomfield has concluded that the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments is superior to the Catholic and Jewish versions. Government shouldn’t put itself in the position of having to discriminate in that way. By staying out of matters of faith, Government gives all religions an equal chance to thrive in our country. That was the purpose of the religious liberty clauses in the First Amendment.”

As recently as 2009, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals—which governs New Mexico—ordered Haskell County, Oklahoma to remove a similar Ten Commandments monument from the county courthouse grounds, saying that a “reasonable observer” would conclude that the monument was an endorsement of religion. The county’s defense of the monument cost local taxpayers $200,000 in legal fees.
 
Read the ACLU of New Mexico’s full legal complaint: Felix v. Bloomfield (PDF).
 
 
 

###

Katy Sheridan is a retired grandmother of two who does not own a car. On October 4, 2011, she walked to the polls in the middle of a rainstorm to vote in Albuquerque city elections. She was turned away and told she could not vote because she was not carrying a valid photo ID.

 

 

Albuquerque made goverment-issued photo ID mandatory to vote in 2008. The ACLU of New Mexico mounted a successful challenge to the law that was subsequently overturned on appeal.