By Steve Beard

There has been a lot in the news recently about the announcement that faith-based charities, hospitals, schools, and universities will soon be required to provide employees with free sterilization services, artificial contraception, and the “morning after” birth control pill as a part of their health care benefits.

This news has Catholic leaders fuming and feeling betrayed. But it has United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler celebrating. “This is a great day for women in the United States,” said the head of the General Board of Church and Society in a press statement.

Needless to say, there are profound differences between the way contraception is viewed by Catholics and Protestants. Fair enough. For observant Catholics, contraception and sterilization have very serious theological dimensions that shape their culture of life.

However, what seems to be at issue in this case is whether or not the federal government should be able to force, for example, the University of Notre Dame or The Sisters of Mercy Hospital to pay for health care provisions that specifically violate Catholic social ethics.

This is far more an issue of religious conscience than merely convenient contraception.

Whatever one’s view regarding birth control or sterilization, one should be more sober than to celebrate the fact that men and women of faith at charities, hospitals, schools, and universities are being forced to pay for something that is at war with their religious conscience.

“This ruling ensures the availability of contraception for all women,” said Mr. Winkler in his Church and Society press release. Huh? Not only is that false, it is an embarrassing deception. Contraception was openly and widely available long before this decision. Mr. Winkler knows that.

According to Mr. Winkler’s press release: “The HHS ruling means that hospitals, universities and other institutions affiliated with a particular faith group will not be allowed to deny their access to this critical preventive care.”

First, why not have the courage to target the Catholics by name in the press release? Second, does “will not be allowed to deny” mean the same thing as “will be forced to pay for”?

“It’s important for women to make their own personal decisions about birth control rather than living by the dictates of their employers,” Mr. Winkler is said to have “emphasized” in his press release.

Seems like he could not resist from really venting on all those he perceives as mean-spirited employers — perhaps it is the nuns with the Daughters of Charity and the Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital, and all those running the Catholic rehabilitation centers, soup kitchens, and nursing homes. Good grief. The anti-poverty, social-justice agency, Catholic Charities, has more than 70,000 employees in the United States.

Ironically, Mr. Winkler and Church and Society have submitted a resolution to the 2012 General Conference of The United Methodist Church on the worthy issue of maternal health. Although the source of this information is not provided in the resolution, Church and Society states: “Providing family-planning services to a woman is inexpensive, costing approximately $2 a year.” I’m not sure who is providing family-planning services for that cost per year, but it throws into question Mr. Winkler’s insistence that the personal decisions of employee birth control are at the unfair mercy of the “dictates” of faith-based employers.

One of those employers Mr. Winkler was referring to is Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of Catholic Health Association of the United States – representing 600 hospitals. Ironically, she was an outspoken defender of President Obama’s health care plan — even going so far as to break with the U.S. Catholic Bishops. That was before she was thrown under the bus by the White House and informed that her conscience exception was being denied.

“It’s not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further,” Sister Keehan told the Associated Press.

Bipartisan protest. Despite the fact that this is an election year, this is a distinctly non-partisan issue. This federal mandate is more about religious liberty and rights than it is about the left or right. The tone deafness on this issue has been protested from both liberals and conservatives who believe strongly in maternal health care.

“This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic country,” Sister Keehan has calmly responded, “which has always respected the role of religions.”

United Methodism’s response to the “national conversation” seems to be, well, unhelpful. To all the women who are unable to “make their own personal decisions about birth control,” at least you can take comfort in knowing that Mr. Winkler is happy that you are no longer “living by the dictates” of those stick-in-the-muds.

Why does that come across as so blatantly condescending and sexist?

Of course, Mr. Winkler shields himself with a United Methodist resolution: “We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family information and services…” as if global United Methodism had signed off on its ironclad support for this specific aspect of the health care plan.

Let’s be very clear, “access” is most certainly not the same thing as the federal government mandating — with $2,000 fines per employee per year for non-compliance — that a faith-based institution betray its religious conscience.

One need not oppose birth control in order to believe that our Catholic brothers and sisters deserve enough respect — as any other Americans — as to not make them violate their theological conscience through compulsory governmental dictates.

“Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question,” confessed Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. “But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.”

Not far enough for RCRC. The 2012 General Conference delegates will be asked once again to end United Methodism’s connection to the abortion-on-demand lobbying organization called the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). Both the Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries are members of RCRC.

Shortly after the denial of religious exemption was announced, RCRC expressed its disappointment that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s decision did not go far enough.

“We recognize this is a victory for many women, but her decision not to extend this coverage to all Americans, no matter the religious perspective of their employer, is disappointing,” RCRC stated. Their disappointment stems from the fact that the administration allowed a narrow exemption for houses of worship from the federal mandates and fines.

The problem, of course, with all of this is that no White House or Health and Human Services personnel should ever be dictating how one parses up religious freedom. For example, what does one do when the soup kitchen and rescue mission is located on the property of the sanctuary or cathedral? And why is this the business of the federal government, the RCRC, or our Board of Church and Society?

The administration “is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular,” writes Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, former White House speech writer. “It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.”

Gerson continues, “Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-clericalism.”

Our commitment to conscience. Historically, United Methodism has placed a very high value on following one’s personal conscience. It is reflected by our support of conscientious objectors to military service. We even offer registration cards on our Board of Church and Society website to help document an individual’s C.O. status.

Is it too much to ask that our Board of Church and Society extend that same generous allowance and understanding to those who refuse other forms of government coercion? Absolutely not

This federal mandate sets a haunting precedent in regard to the future of religious freedom. Today, the political hot potato is faith-based charities, hospitals, schools, and universities. Tomorrow, it will be cathedrals, synagogues, and local parishes that will be under a more watchful gaze of the federal government.

The real question now has become, at what point do we draw the line?

Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.