Religion & American Law

Here is the link to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/10/parents-beliefs-vs-their-childrens-health/child-abuse-under-the-guise-of-religion

Over Spring Break, I came across a very interesting article while reading the New York Times online. The article, an opinion piece, argues that states should no longer grant statutory rights and religious exemptions to parents who do not believe in medical care. These parents argue that their faith restricts them from granting their children resources including, but not limited to, immunization, health screenings, and medical care.

Most states have at least some religious exemptions, though some states have enacted exemptions that call into question whether a family’s religious beliefs are truly more important than the health of the children. Idaho, for example, has exempted parents who do not want to allow their children to have lifesaving medical care for religious reasons. As a result, many children have died in Idaho over the past few years because they were not allowed to have medical care.

While the question of whether a family’s religious beliefs should come before the interests that the state has to keep its members safe and healthy is most prominent, a factor that must be considered is also those around a sick child in this type of situation. Classmates, teachers, the parents themselves, and even strangers on the street can be immune to the sickness or disease the child has. For instance, the article states that “in 2007 just two cases of measles among religious objectors cost Oregon and a hospital $170,000. Teachers have to stay home; schools have to hire substitutes. Working parents have to stay home with children in quarantine.” Certainly, I don’t think money should be taken into consideration when trying to solve these questions. At the same time, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of its citizens and when multiple people, and possibly hundreds of people in the case of measles, are at risk of serious health issues, I believe the state needs to step in and draw the line between religious exemptions and public safety.

Another question that comes up is whether the parents should get to choose not only what their children believe in but also the resources they can have access to or whether the children should be able to choose. This is tough because often times, the children are young and not capable of choosing. While their individual rights are certainly called into question, an argument could be made that their parents pay for their bills and pay for everything they own, so the parents should be able to decide what to spend on medical care, for example. I believe that the parents should be able to decide on their own what to spend their money on when it comes to their children, so long as the child’s health and safety is not at risk. If a sickness or disease should be cured through ways that a religion may not believe in but does not need to be cured through any of those ways, the parent or parents should not be forced to choose something that goes against their religion. If, however, the disease or sickness requires immediate attention or needs to be cured through a method that goes against the parents’ religion, the state should step in and protect the child over everything else. In these circumstances, the state has a duty and that duty should not be overridden by anything else, including religion.

In 2012, a 6-foot-tall stone monument, inscribed with then Ten Commandments, was installed on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol, per mandate of the Oklahoma State Government.  Since then, there have been two lawsuits filed against the monument. In September, an Oklahoma County District Judge ruled that the monument’s presence is not unconstitutional and can remain in its location on the Capitol’s grounds.  The case at play here is a lawsuit filed in January 2014 by a New Jersey non-profit group, American Atheists Inc. 

The American Atheists alleged that the monument violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government sanctioning a particular religion and other constitutional rights.  This case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron in Oklahoma on March 10^thbecause the plaintiffs failed to show standing upon which to bring this lawsuit.  The president of the American Atheists organization, David Silverman, said “I want to be clear about this: we have a religious monument, placed on government property, by government mandate.”

I agree with the fact that the New Jersey based group had no grounds upon which to file this suit and therefore agree with the dismissal.  However, I do believe that a group in Oklahoma indirectly or directly affected by this monument would have valid grounds upon which to challenge the establishment of this monument.  In my opinion, either all groups who wish to do so should be allowed to have a monument on the grounds or the Ten Commandments monument should be removed so as to not show a preference of the state government toward any one religion.

By allowing the Oklahoma State Capitol to have the Ten Commandments posted on their grounds, the state is opening themselves up to a slippery slope that they may not be ready to deal with.  For example, a Satanic group has already commenced building their own monument for the Capitol’s lawn as a way of protesting.  A spokesperson for the Governor of Oklahoma stated that there “will never be a satanic monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol and the suggestion that there might be is absurd”.  From this statement, it appears very obvious that the state has no intention to treat all religions and non-religions equal in the matter of who is allowed to resurrect a monument here.  The Satanic group believes that if they are not allowed to place this statue or the state will be “demonstrating an unconstitutional double standard”.  Since the Ten Commandment monument’s placement, other groups have asked to erect their own monuments including a Hindu leader, an animal rights group, and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Another case we have looked at recently that dealt with displaying the Ten Commandments in a public location is Stone v. Graham, where the court ruled that the Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom violated the Establishment Claus of the First Amendment.  In this case, the court used the Lemon test to find that the posting of the Ten Commandments served “no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature”.  Though it still seems as though courts choose when and when not to apply the Lemon test, the Ten Commandments monument clearly violates both of these facets of the test as well.  The Oklahoma State held a similar belief as the Kentucky court in Stone v. Graham that the posting of the Ten Commandments serves a historical purpose, not a religious purpose.  However, I believe that it is not possible for the Ten Commandments to solely serve a historical purpose and not a religious purpose because of their fundamental nature in the Christian religion.

By not permitting all secular and non-secular groups that desire to have a historical monument on the capitol grounds, the Oklahoma state government would be prohibiting the free exercise of other, non-Christian groups.  The government would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and consequently, would show that they are establishing the religion of Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause.  What will happen the next time a group inevitably brings a suit to have the Ten Commandments removed?  Will this case be dismissed yet again or will a group that proves to have enough standing finally give this issue the attention it deserves?

Emily Herx was a literature and language arts teacher for seven years at a Catholic school in Indiana. For years she had been trying to have a second child, and elected to go through vitro fertilization as a means to achieve her second pregnancy. She was shocked to learn that her contract with the school would not be renewed due to her procedure. Her religious employers had deemed her a “grave, immoral sinner” for the use of the vitro fertilization, and felt she was no longer fit to teach at their institution. Emily filed a federal lawsuit against the school and the local diocese on the grounds of sex discrimination. The school responded to the lawsuit claiming that they were exempt from the federal anti-discrimination laws because “their decision to fire Emily was motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs.” After a four-day trial, the jury found that the school had in fact discriminated against Emily, and awarded her a $1.9 million settlement.

            In principle, I agree with the courts decision to award Emily a settlement. In accordance with the free exercise clause, we all have the right to our beliefs. However, the church does not have the right to discriminate on the grounds of their beliefs. My contention with the case comes from the healthcare side of the issue. Part of the healthcare program the school provided for Mrs. Herx would have gone toward the payment of her procedure. When there is a financial stake in her procedure, does the school have the right to terminate her employment? Does their right to discriminate extend when they are forced to pay for the procedure that their beliefs fundamentally denounce? In this case, I believe it does. The Catholic school is a private organization, and I believe that their financial matters warrant their right to deny Mrs. Herx employment. The families who choose to send their children to this school pay tuition, which goes toward the operations and maintenance of the school. Every dollar that goes into this school does so with the expectation of their children receiving an education that is grounded in catholic roots. I don’t believe that the families would approve of the allocation of funds toward healthcare procedures that go directly against their deepest beliefs. I believe that the only reason the church has any grounds to terminate Mrs. Herx’s employment come from this fiscal perspective. Had the church held no financial stake in the matter, I believe they have no right to discriminate against Mrs. Herx.

Where do you stand regarding the sex discrimination in this case? Do you feel that the fiscal entanglement between the church and Mrs. Herx’s procedure warrants their right to terminate her employment?