Are Church Hospitals Secular or Religious Institutions?

[Anonymous]

Someone referred in another post to the Establishment Clause, told us to read up on it. And so I did. I learned something very interesting about government funding and paying for services provided by religious institutions.

There are two supreme court cases on the subject. The first, and defining case is Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899). In that case, where Congress provided funding for the Sisters of Charity to build a hospital, the court held that the action was constitutional because the hospital was a secular institution. The court described the hospital as an "ordinary corporation" with the same duties as any other private corporation.

In the other only case, Bowen v. Kendrick (1988), the court relied upon Bradfield when it held that the government could fund faith-based organizations to provide counseling services to pregnant teens.

This is the crux of the contraception debate. The entire basis of government funding of these hospitals, payment for services to the poor, is the fact that the courts have categorized them as secular institutions. However, when they are expected to comply with the order on contraception, they are doing a complete about-face and claiming that they are religious institutions.

It may not seem like a big deal to do this, but it actually undermines the entire constitutional argument for government funding of Catholic charities that serve the poor. And now I understand how the Administration ended up in this position, because they are acting consistent with the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

[takoma]

OP, thanks for the research.

There are four positions I discern here: The original Obama position, which as you say is that of these decisions, the revised Obama position, which bends over backwards to accommodate the Church while continuing to ensure BC coverage, the Church position, which desires government subsidy but no requirement to follow government laws, and the GOP position, which is to attack Obama for anything available.

[Anonymous]

That is very interesting, OP.

[Anonymous]

Really appreciate the research -- it's nice to read something here that is so well supported!

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the backgrounder, OP. This is very enlightening.

I'm the PP on the other thread who referred to the Establishment Clause, and some ultra-religious poster replied that I should read up on it.
While I make no claim to be a constitutional scholar, my point was that this country's legal foundations rest upon the separation of Church and State, and institutions receiving public money cannot push a religious agenda at taxpayer expense.
It would be interesting to know how the Supreme Court would react to someone suing a Catholic employer for coverage on the basis of these decisions. I'd imagine that given the current make-up of the court it would find some reason to further weaken the notion of separation of Church and State. Any constitutional mavens care to comment?

[Anonymous]

Since individuals do not have an automatic right to specific health benefits from an employer, I don't think they would have the standing to sue unless the employer was not complying with the law.

So unless Congress decides to abandon the legal exemptions for them, I think that employee is going to have a hard time getting a court to listen.

But if the Church took it to court because they refused the compromise, then it sets up an interesting problem. The conservatives would either have to hold that government requirements for such services cannot be forced on ANY employer, or they would have to address the issue of religion. And that would bring Bradfield in.