Why do some progressive Democrats ignore bigotry and intolerance in religions?

[thucythucy]

27. I'm still not sure I understand then what your question is.

If you're asking why "is this sort of restriction on reproductive health care" tolerated in the specific instance you describe, the legal answer is the first amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted over the course of several centuries to mean that government in general can't--in general--make rules or pass laws that seek to compel members of religious groups to violate their beliefs, assuming those beliefs don't violate other criminal laws. And so, for instance, people who for religious reasons oppose all war are granted (sometimes) conscientious objector status exempting them from military service. Even in some cases where religious practice violates the law--for instance certain groups that use peyote as a sacrament--there is carved out a religious exemption. I suppose this is why society -- we -- tolerate the instance you cite--because that's been a part of our constitutional system, and people, progressives especially, may be loathe to change that.

As for restricting choice, I agree, it's a terrible thing, obviously. The argument I've heard from left wing Catholics in a case such as you cite--where the Catholic hospital is the only service available--is that the reason this is so is because no other health care provider chooses to operate in that community. Historically, religious groups founded hospitals to provide services in communities that our for-profit health care system refused to serve. So the "choice" for residents in that situation isn't between pro or anti-choice as regards reproductive health care, but health care with such restrictions versus no health care at all. Which is why, if we want to effectively end such injustice, we need universal health care in which religious based services are always redundant. If you want to go to a Catholic hospital, fine. But if you don't, then you can go to the secular option with no added expense or difficulties (such as distance to such care). That's the way it should work.

I'm not aware of county hospitals becoming Catholic hospitals--from what I've seen it's the other way around--the Catholic church has been shrinking over all, shutting down both churches and community services, sometimes leaving communities with no accessible health care at all. But I'll take your word for it that in this instance it might have happened. How, I wonder, did that happen? Did local residents decide to sell off the public hospital in order to lower taxes? Is the local government so strapped for funds that it had to go to the Church to continue serving people at all? But then I notice you say "may" be a Catholic Hospital, does this mean then that your example is a hypothetical?

Whatever the case, my understanding of the law around these issues is foggy. On the one hand, I know that federal civil rights law generally includes provisions that say if any entity receives federal funding, it has to abide my federal nondiscrimination policies. On the other hand, I take it the courts have ruled generally that these provisions don't apply to religious based institutions. It's a constant struggle between those two sides. If you want an answer as to how to change this, my answer would be the difficult boring one: vote for progressive Democrats who will appoint and confirm progressive judges who may be able to justifiably change that interpretation of the balance between secular state and religious concerns.

We see the same struggle in pharmacies, where some pharmacists refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of their professed beliefs. The instances I've seen usually result in the pharmacist in that case being fired or otherwise reprimanded. But I don't know if this is a result of federal or general law, or simply the various pharmacies taking action on their own.

So that's the best answer I have to the question in your last paragraph. Under the law, as it currently exists, religious groups are granted certain exemptions not available to secular groups. It's a part of our Constitution, and rooted in our history. Which doesn't make it right or unchangeable. Just the reality as it exists today.

I hope this is helpful.