Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Obama's EEOC: "What Religious Rights???"

We mentioned this when it broke. It's getting traction--for good reason.

On July 30 of this year, a regional office of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified Belmont Abbey College, a small Catholic institution not far from Charlotte, N.C., that its policy of not covering contraception in its employee health insurance plan violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark law forbidding discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, and other characteristics. The letter, sent by the EEOC's district office in Charlotte, informed Belmont Abbey that the EEOC had made a "determination" that by "denying prescription contraceptive drugs," the college was "discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives."

The letter came as a shock to Belmont Abbey, because a little less than five months earlier, on March 12, that very same EEOC district office had issued a completely different determination: telling the college that its investigation had left it unable to conclude that there were any "violations of the statutes." The commission dismissed the complaint brought by eight members of the Belmont Abbey faculty challenging the legality of Belmont Abbey's anti-contraceptives policy.

Gee. What could have possibly occurred late in 2008 which might have influenced this 180-degree turn in ruling?......especially given this:

In taking its current stance, the EEOC is attempting to override not just the conscience-clause laws of nearly half the states but also federal court precedents

Those precedents are examined in the linked article, which also notes EEOC's inordinate love for contraceptives, especially under (D) Presidents.

Love or no, the EEOC should not prevail against the 1st Amendment. Of course, EEOC can lose the case and still severely harm Belmont Abbey, because lawyers cost money.

That's something we should notice, if nothing else.


Neo-Con Tastic said...

Constitutionality is a term never uttered in the government today.

Dave said...

As far as legal issues go, I think the Thomas More Law Center might be happy to help...OTOH, if the EEOC is willing to ignore current precedent, they will be willing to ignore SCOTUS if the ruling is not to their liking...

Grim said...

Well, I hear Obama is backing anti-blasphemy at the UN. So, really, he's willing to balance his anti-First-Amendment stance against the free exercise of religion, if it comes up against his more important anti-First-Amendment stance against free speech.