After last summer’s Hobby Lobby court case, Wheaton forces us to ask difficult questions about religious freedom and health care access.
As the summer months come to a close, students at Wheaton College are finishing internships, binge-watching their favorite TV shows on Netflix and — in light of recent events — scrambling to find adequate health insurance.
On July 31st, Wheaton College officially discontinued its student health insurance program for the 2015-16 academic year. The drop in coverage should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with Wheaton’s religious commitments.
As a private Christian liberal arts institution, Wheaton College is fiercely opposed to certain forms of birth control, which some evangelicals believe are capable of causing abortions (though it is important to note that the World Health Organization refutes this claim, clarifying that emergency contraceptive pills cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare), Wheaton claims, has forced the institution to be complicit in providing medications that violate its most basic religious tenants.
Wheaton’s allegations are not unlike those we heard during last summer’s landmark case, Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, allowing closely-held corporations to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate on the grounds of religious objection. If the owners of a closely-held corporation do not wish to provide certain contraceptives to their employees, they can fill out an exemption form. The contraceptives are then provided directly by the third-party insurer. Easy enough, right?
Wrong. Wheaton has alleged that even filling out this form would constitute a gross compromise of religious integrity. And so, rather than signing on the dotted line, Wheaton College has decided to terminate its student health care program. Wheaton has posted resources online to assist its students with the arduous process of securing their own health insurance through Illinois’ marketplace exchange. If, after 60 days, students are still uninsured, they will face hefty tax penalties. The college will continue to offer its health insurance to faculty and staff.
I have taken on this column in an effort to promote difficult dialogues of the religious variety. And so, for whatever it may be worth, I will submit my own take on Wheaton’s present situation, and I eagerly encourage my readers to respond and offer their own insights. I believe that Wheaton College and its associated administration, faculty, staff and students absolutely have the right to make their own religiously-informed judgments about the merits of emergency contraception. And it is true that colleges and universities are not required by the government to provide student health insurance programs.
In this respect, Wheaton has not violated any law. That being said, I believe that we are entering dangerous territory. If actions truly do speak louder than words, Wheaton has suggested it is more interested in making an ideological point and less interested in guaranteeing the well-being of its students. I am compelled to ask — with tongue in cheek — what would Jesus do?
Wheaton College is forcing us to confront the precarious intersection of religion and politics.
Does filling out an exemption form qualify as a “substantial burden on religious exercise” as defined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)? Are religious rights and women’s reproductive rights necessarily antagonistic? Is it possible for corporations and/or educational institutions to hold religious beliefs? To what extent do religious corporations and/or educational institutions have the right to impose their beliefs on employees/students? Is Wheaton College’s stance one worth defending? And, if so, at what cost?
Grace Eberly is a senior studying world religions and biology. What religious-related topics do you want her to talk about this semester? Email her at ge713313@ohio.edu.
