Letter to a friend on the Health Care Debate

Hey, Xxxx. I’ve been meaning to get back to you for a couple of days now, but this is the first opportunity I’ve had.

I appreciate that you took the time to discuss these issues. Can’t say I see eye to eye with you on all of them, but that’s ok. I like the chance to exchange views.

Our system of government was created to protect certain liberties. It’s not always convenient, but it protects your liberties as well as mine. Among those liberties are religion and free association. We are allowed to enter into contracts as private citizens and institutions, setting the terms of those contracts as we see fit. There are some restrictions, for instance, we cannot take out a contract on another person’s life. However, in general, we are free to associate as we see fit. This extends to employment contracts. An individual or a corporation or any other kind of party is free to employ another party according to terms that they both agree to. This has been the strength of our economy since our nation’s inception and in other economies where it has been practiced.

So, when a church, parachurch ministry, religious education institution, etc. seeks to employ an individual, they should be able to enter into a contract on mutually agreeable terms. If the terms are not mutually agreeable then neither party need enter into the contract.

Now, the government will undoubtedly intervene at some level, imposing restraints to protect the interests of weaker parties. However, if it does this too much, the value of entering into these agreements decreases. It becomes more cost effective not to enter into as many contracts. Furthermore, the need for some minimalist intervention is not absolute authority to ignore the rights of either party in the contract. The government was constructed as it was to protect the maximum number of liberties for the maximum number of people. This may mean that not everyone does what we think they ought to, but we must recognize that it also protects us from many obligations to do things that offend our conscience. Were you a small business owner, would it be just to force you to purchase a product that directly profited Lockheed Martin or Boeing (major defense contractors)?

It’s easy enough to say that if it’s against our conscience that we need not participate (though I won’t be surprised at the day when even that liberty is threatened. It’s happened before), but to enable an action is still participation in that action. If that impinges on the religious liberty of an employer, there is no competing right, according to our highest law (the Constitution), that that can force that obligation on them. What’s more, it is still debatable as to whether the government can compel individuals to have health insurance and they haven’t even tried to say that employers must provide it. It remains a benefit that employers offer to entice people to work for them, not an obligation for employers to pay such as social security tax. To regulate the distribution of it runs contrary to our rights of free association and, in this case, freedom of conscience in observing religion.

Let’s be frank though. This is not principally an issue about simple contraceptives. Though that alone would be enough to offend against the consciences of both Catholics and some Protestants, this mandate includes pharmacological abortifacients, more commonly called ‘morning after’ pills. An honest discussion on all sides would admit to the greater gravity of that issue and whether it is wise to impel people to participate in that.

Finally, the core of my original comment is not the debate itself. It is my disappointment with those unwilling to engage the debate honestly. This debate and others are essential to have. It lessens the chance that the debate will be constructive when either side refuses to represent their opponent’s position honestly.

Now to your arguments: you have made the statement that contraceptives are increasingly vital. That is not an assertion that I can accept at face value. Things I have read recently cite our country’s present population replacement rate as around .7. I if understood this correctly, it means that if present birth rates are maintained, our population will decline in size to seven tenths of its current size over some span of time (I can’t remember if they said ‘generation’ or a hundred years or what). In what sense do we need to further slow birth rates? From an economic perspective, we’re in trouble as it is. Our social welfare system is dependent on having larger numbers in generations that are working than in generations that have retired from the work force. As things are going, this will not always be true. From an individual perspective, there are no restraints on anyone’s decisions concerning “reproductive rights.” The need for greater access to contraceptives is not self-evident.

I’m not sure what to make of your statement about doctor’s being more concerned with your wife’s health than political/religious ideology. On the surface it makes sense: your wife’s health is a concrete reality that is easy to gauge, obviously of greater import than abstractions tied to debates in the public arena. However, I think it fails to take into account that most of those ideologies are expressions of a collection of convictions, convictions that have real world examples and are worked out through principled decisions in day to day life. So, when I say that the conservative position is as concerned with women’s health as anyone, I mean that people who hold conservative ideals are as concerned with women’s health as anyone who holds political ideals of a different stripe. Appeals to concerns about “reproductive health” is what set me thinking about this. The term is often a bludgeon used by some to claim the moral high ground in some arenas of the health care debate. I do not think this is fair. It is, at the very least, incorrect. While some drugs used for birth control can and should be used to address health issues apart from preventing pregnancy and these drugs remain available for legal use in preventing pregnancy, it is not reasonable to ask anyone to believe that maximizing access to them is the single most important component in ensuring women’s continued ability to reproduce (what the term “reproductive health” would self-evidently mean) or in helping to increase their lifespans or improve their quality of life.

Now, having said all this, I have close to zero expectation of swaying you one iota. Email is not an effective medium for changing hearts. Rather, I believe that courtesy demanded that I take your comments seriously and respond seriously. I welcome your return comments, especially on any points where I have failed to be courteous. I hope you and your wife and your whole extended family are doing well. Say hello to them for me when you see them.

Regards,

Jim Slice