Rules Of The Road: Judge Says Bishops Can’t Drive Government Trafficking Policy

March 28, 2012 by Rob Boston in Wall of Separation

If you’re not willing to do what the job requires, you’re not likely to get it. End of story.



In November, I wrote a blog post about the Catholic bishops and their complaints after the church was denied a federal contract to assist victims of human trafficking. Today I’d like to report on an interesting sequel to that controversy.

In a nutshell, the story breaks down like this: In 2000, Congress passed a law designed to crack down on those who engage in the sex trafficking of people; the law also contained provisions providing services to victims of this crime.

The federal government searched for private contractors to help people who had been forced into this modern version of slavery. Because victims of trafficking are often raped or forced into prostitution, the government wanted to make sure that a full range of medical services was provided to them.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops received a large contract to assist trafficking victims, even though the church made it clear that it would provide no contraceptives or abortion referrals. Furthermore, the church was adamant that it would tell the more than 100 subcontractors it worked with (many of which were not Catholic groups) that they could not provide these services or referrals, either.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued in 2009, arguing that allowing a religious agency to run public policy according to its dogma violated the separation of church and state. As the case advanced in the courts, the Obama administration decided not to renew the church’s contract, asserting that tax money would only go to organizations willing to offer the comprehensive medical services.

The decision made a lot of sense. Victims of trafficking have already been traumatized and refusing to give them the full gamut of necessary medical services to ensure their health and well-being seemed like another form of assault.

The government’s decision sparked a howl of outrage from the bishops. They made the rather remarkable argument that the government’s failure to renew the contract was somehow a form of religious bigotry. In fact, the church lost the contract because it wasn’t willing to meet contract requirements. If you’re not willing to do what the job requires, you’re not likely to get it. End of story. (Nevertheless, Republicans in the House of Representatives held a hearing on the matter to play the “bias against Catholics” card.)

I’m pleased to say that a federal judge has rejected the church’s argument. New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal notes on his “Loyal Opposition” blog that last week U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns ruled for the ACLU in the case.

“To insist that the government respect the separation of church and state is not to discriminate against religion; indeed, it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out any creed for official favor at the expense of all others,” observed Stearns in the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts v. Sebelius ruling.

Elsewhere, Stearns wrote that the federal government violated separation of church and state “insofar as they delegated authority to a religious organization to impose religiously based restrictions on the expenditure of taxpayer funds, and there impliedly endorsed the religious beliefs of the USCCB and the Catholic Church.”

This ruling could have broad implications for a host of governmental matters, including the role of religiously affiliated employers in the health care reform.

At a minimum, it’s a welcome reminder that public policy must never be twisted to meet the dogma of any religious group.