Skip to footer

The court’s restraint in church-contraceptive case

The Supreme Court wisely avoids ruling directly in an apparent clash of religious liberty and access to contraceptives, citing a path for compromise.

|
REUTERS
Supporters of contraception rally at the Supreme Court in March before a hearing in the case of Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal brought by Christian groups demanding full exemption from the requirement to provide insurance covering contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
  • By the Monitor's Editorial Board

In an unusual ruling Monday, the US Supreme Court decided not to pick sides in a group of cases that seemed to pit religious liberty against a woman’s access to contraceptives. Instead, all eight justices punted the cases back to the lower courts to find a discrete compromise peculiar to the issue. This was a wise move given the “culture wars” in American politics that often push judges to decide what is the correct exercise of religion.

The cases centered on a federal requirement that nonprofit religious organizations, such as a church charity, participate in the process of offering free coverage of contraceptives to their female employees. Such groups wanted the high court to prevent the Obama administration from imposing fines if they did not sign a form that allows them to opt out of the coverage and triggers the government to arrange it instead. This requirement, they said, would harm their religious conscience.

The justices decided not to reach for any grand legal theory, either about an undue burden on religion or a compelling government interest in women’s health care. They did not want to delve into gender rights or what is the proper expression of faith in a church ministry. The constitutional importance of such issues is as “uncertain” in these cases as is the necessity of the court’s involvement, they said.

The high court instead ordered the two sides to craft a new regulatory scheme that will provide contraceptives to the groups’ employees but not impinge on the religious groups’ “decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage....” The ruling is a victory for judicial modesty in the face of the escalating legal battles over church-state issues.

Many disputes involving religion and public life are best solved by focusing only on specific details, often in friendly settings and by keeping issues narrowly defined. Courts are simply not equipped to meddle in every religious concern by imposing legal abstractions on matters of faith. “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority,” wrote James Madison, a primary author of the US Constitution.

In a previous ruling, the Supreme Court advised government to “refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.” In this latest ruling, the justices applied that rule to themselves. Their restraint should be a model for today’s politics.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to The court’s restraint in church-contraceptive case
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2016/0516/The-court-s-restraint-in-church-contraceptive-case
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe