THE CONSTITUTION AND BIRTH CONTROL

[The following ran, slightly edited, as "Correspondent of the Day" in the Richmond, Virginia Times Dispatch on Saturday, March 17, 2012.]

Your "Correspondent of the Day" for March 12, Rev. Msgr. Michael McCarron of Williamsburg, erroneously asserts that totally voluntary hospital operations of the Catholic Church have a constitutional right to be treated differently from other hospitals merely because of the religious affiliation. He is simply wrong. Like the taxable parking garage owned by St. Paul's (Episcopal) Church in downtown Richmond, as a secular operation a Catholic hospital must and should account to the government the same as other hospitals. A Catholic hospital is a health agency, not a church. Its association with the Catholic Church is merely incidental to its primary function, and it enjoys a government-protected territorial monopoly and receives secular government assistance, the same as other hospitals. The Constitution arguably (1) ensures secular government and (2) protects the practice of religion by individuals and their institutions of WORSHIP. It does not prevent accountability for secular operations. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of religion."

All hospitals in Virginia must first obtain "Certificates of Necessity" granting a virtual monopoly for the territory to be served by the hospital. One may not simply "open a hospital." Recently, the federal government proposed that hospitals (generally) provide employees with adequate medical care, INCLUDING birth control. The Catholic hospitals were not singled out in this regard. If the Catholic Church wants to make money off its monopoly hospitals and receive public assistance, it should expect to "pony up," the same as any other hospital operator. Instead, it claims a "right" to a special EXCEPTION from universal regulation where none lawfully exists.

If a church is going to establish a hospital, it must obviously abide by government regulations targeting the health of the patients. By Msgr. McCarron's tortured logic, a church-related hospital would be constitutionally exempt from compliance with any health regulation deemed to be in violation of its sponsor's subjective dogma. For example, consider a hospital established by religious snake-handlers that might refuse to treat poisonous snakebites deemed to be inflicted upon presumably wicked victims by the hand of God. Would such ludicrous refusal be protected under the Constitution? I doubt it. (I am not here suggesting an equivalency between snakebites and birth control, although I am tempted!)

If the Catholic Church does not want to dispense birth control information or devices, its members may certainly lobby in opposition to the relevant hospital regulations generally, and/or it can just get out of the hospital business.