"This is real government interference in the lives of citizens -- not very Republican of [Rubio] in an election year to have government dictating what people should do in personal matters, especially since most Catholics use a method of contraception the bishops disagree with." said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice about Florida Senator Marco Rubio's new bill that would allow religious hospitals to opt-out of providing birth control mandated under the new Obama administration rules.
The point being made by Rubio is simple: "This is a common-sense bill that simply says the government can't force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so," Rubio said in a statement. However, one is hard pressed to logically make the leap that offering, not actually promoting the use of, birth control prevents Catholics from freely practicing their religion. Rubio is making too big a leap with the premises of his own argument in suggesting that refusing to allow religious institutions to exist in a bubble is the same as refusing to allow open practice, which this law is not.
What's great about America is that if you don't want to use birth control, you don't have to; there's nothing oppressive about having to provide it short of needing some closet space in a hospital. There is, however, something incredible inhibitive about being forced to seek medical treatment elsewhere because a hospital, whose sole job is to provide health care, refused to help you. Additionally, a poll conducted in 2005 suggests that over 80% of Catholic doctors openly support, and would prescribe birth control to a patient and this is why people come to hospitals; to see doctors, and generally are not selecting their medical treatment based upon their employer's religious beliefs. This data implies a certain philosophical question about the practice of medicen: the respondant's comments suggest that it isn't the medical staff of these hospitals that would object, but the administration, and isn't a thoroughly un-medical bureaucracy part of the problem with the American health care system?
Furthermore, this raises a question about what is being called discrimination in regards to enforcing the mandate: Similar to rules regarding hiring practices and the like, should a Catholic hospital, for example, be allowed to opt-out while still receiving certain levels of government support (tax exemption, government grants, etc.) even as so-called private institutions?
The legality and constitutionality of the Obama mandate and Rubio's bill is expansive and certainly debateable in the abstract, but at its core, this issue comes down to whether or not it is right to deny medical treatment (which birth control is certainly a part of) because of religious beliefs, rather than those of the patient. No one is being coerced to use birth control, just ensuring availability, which may make someone uncomfortable, but hardly impedes their ability to abstain from using birth control themselves.
