{"id":2471,"date":"2012-07-02T07:10:02","date_gmt":"2012-07-02T14:10:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgdarkly.com\/blog\/?p=2471"},"modified":"2012-07-02T07:10:02","modified_gmt":"2012-07-02T14:10:02","slug":"christians-and-the-supreme-courts-health-care-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/2012\/07\/02\/christians-and-the-supreme-courts-health-care-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Christians and the Supreme Court's Health Care Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have a post up on Jesus Creed<\/a>.\u00a0 Here’s the text:<\/p>\n

Thursday last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius<\/a> \u2013 the health care law case.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, the talk shows, the newspapers, the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook, and every other imaginable outlet are lit up with comments and arguments.\u00a0 What should Christians think about this case?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I will offer some thoughts about how I think Christians should think about it. But first, and perhaps most importantly, I\u2019d like to suggest that there is no single position<\/em> that can be called the<\/em> Christian view on this particular case.\u00a0 It\u2019s a complex issue in terms of economics, social policy, history, and the law.\u00a0 Let\u2019s try to give each other the freedom to express nuanced opinions on these difficult questions.<\/p>\n

There are at least two common themes running through much of the Christian commentary on the decision.\u00a0 On the right, the view is that the Court\u2019s decision, as well as the law itself, represents a threat to freedom.\u00a0 For example, here is something posted on the Trinity Forum\u2019s Facebook page<\/a>, from TTF Trustee Edwin Meese:<\/p>\n

The Court was correct to find that Congress does not have the authority to compel purchases under the Commerce Clause. \u00a0But it erred in contorting the statute to declare the penalty a tax. \u00a0And the fact that the Court decided to allow this abuse under the government\u2019s taxing authority, not the Commerce Clause, doesn\u2019t change the fact that individual freedom has been dealt a serious blow.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On the left, the decision, and the law itself, are viewed as an important victory for justice.\u00a0 Here is Jim Wallis of Sojourners<\/a>:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThis is an important victory for millions of uninsured people in our country and ultimately a triumph of the common good.\u201d\u00a0 Nevertheless, Wallis qualifies his praise:<\/p>\n

While I believe the decision is reason to celebrate, it doesn\u2019t mean that this legislation is somehow the flawless will of God; it is an important step in expanding health care coverage and reducing long term costs, but it still is not perfect and more work is yet to be done.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed aspects of the law but did not ever argue for its repeal.\u00a0 Their concerns about the law were not based on the notion of universal health care itself, which is something Catholic Social Teaching supports (or at least can be read to support).\u00a0 Rather, the Bishops are concerned that the law that seems to support abortion, compromises rights of conscientious objectors, and does not provide adequately for immigrants.\u00a0 In their statement on the Court\u2019s decision<\/a>, the Bishops conclude:<\/p>\n

Following enactment of ACA, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not joined in efforts to repeal the law in its entirety, and we do not do so today.\u00a0 The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above.\u00a0 We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Before I offer my thoughts on these varying representative perspectives, let me step back and note once again that each of them represents good faith efforts to think Christianly about the Court\u2019s decision.\u00a0 The fact that they finally offer different visions of the end result should give us pause before we argue that there is only one<\/em> faithful way to think about it.<\/p>\n

That said, from my own perspective, the Trinity Forum \/ Edwin Meese comment is the most theologically problematic of the three I\u2019ve referenced.\u00a0 Even more problematic, I think, are the more extreme libertarian critiques of the law heard in many outlets. \u00a0Meese\u2019s comment is at least measured in tone, which is not the case with much of the libertarian rhetoric that feeds into what many Christians have said and are saying about \u201cObamacare.\u201d\u00a0 How quickly does the dreaded \u201cs\u201d word \u2013 \u201csocialism\u201d \u2013 arise in many of these comments?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I wonder when \u201cindividual freedom\u201d became the sine qua non<\/em> for Christian social ethics about health care? <\/strong> It seems to me that Christians of all people should be willing to sacrifice some of their \u201cindividual freedom\u201d in order to ensure that everyone, particularly \u201cthe least of these,\u201d has access to health care.\u00a0 In scriptural and Christian theological terms, true \u201cfreedom\u201d is not libertarian license, but rather is the full participation of a person in God\u2019s self-giving love.\u00a0 And true \u201cfreedom\u201d is never about isolated individuals \u2013 as God is a Triune community, so we as human beings can only be truly \u201cfree\u201d in community.<\/p>\n

Of course, even if we agree that Christians should be willing to give up some \u201cindividual freedom\u201d to facilitate health care for others \u2013 or, perhaps better, that Christian<\/em> freedom means moving beyond selfishness \u2014 \u00a0the question remains whether such care should be provided through government, through private associations, through Churches, through families, and so on.\u00a0 There is a long and tangled tradition of Christian political theology on all of these questions \u2013 and, at least in my opinion, there is no simple right answer.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t enough here merely to refer to \u201csphere sovereignty\u201d or \u201csubsidiarity,\u201d just as it isn\u2019t enough merely to refer to the immanent \u201cpeaceable Kingdom.\u201d\u00a0 I do think some ways of working through this are much better than others, but these are the subjects of long and carefully worked out philosophies that can\u2019t be reduced to sound bites.\u00a0 (For a flavor of what I think is a wonderful example of contemporary Christian political theology regarding public goods and markets in areas such as health care, see Pope Benedict\u2019s Encyclical Caritas in Veritate<\/a>).<\/p>\n

From my perspective there is less to criticize in Wallis\u2019 comment on the decision.\u00a0 Nevertheless, I would much more significantly qualify my enthusiasm for the result because of Justice Roberts\u2019 reasoning on the taxing power.\u00a0 In fact, ultimately I think it\u2019s a poorly reasoned judicial opinion that opens a can of worms concerning what the government can call a \u201ctax.\u201d<\/em> It seems to me troublesome development that the Constitution\u2019s taxing power can extend to a choice not <\/em>to buy a product \u2013 a choice not to act.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to pay taxes, for example, for choosing not to buy a car or a bicycle or broccoli.\u00a0 This really does seem to expand the government\u2019s economic power in ways I find troubling.<\/p>\n

While \u201cindividual freedom,\u201d in libertarian terms, is not the <\/em>central concern (as I see it) of Christian social ethics, nevertheless the integrity of the person<\/em> very much is a central concern.\u00a0 And this does mean that persons, not States<\/em>, finally are the basic subject of politics, and that freedoms of the person and of private associations of persons are of basic importance.\u00a0 An essential function of any just political structure therefore must be to hold the State\u2019s power in check through the rule of law.\u00a0 Whether the majority or the liberal-wing dissenters in the Sebelius<\/em> case were right about the commerce clause issue \u2013 itself a legally and historically complex question \u2014 I believe the commerce clause should have been the basis for the decision rather than the taxing power.<\/em> In my view, the payments required for uninsured persons under the individual mandate clearly are a \u201cpenalty,\u201d not a \u201ctax,\u201d and therefore they should stand or fall as an exercise of federal governmental power under the commerce clause.<\/p>\n

Given my reference to Pope Benedict\u2019s Caritas in Veritate<\/em>, it\u2019s perhaps not surprising that I personally find the USCCB statement about the Court\u2019s ruling the most appropriate of the three I\u2019ve referenced.\u00a0 In my view, Christians should desire that all persons have access to decent health care, and markets alone cannot meet this goal either from a moral or a pragmatic perspective.\u00a0 A Christian social ethic therefore should recognize that it is a necessary and appropriate function of government to facilitate universal access to healthcare. <\/em> However, where \u201chealthcare\u201d includes things like elective abortions, which raise serious moral concerns for many persons and religious associations, appropriate exemptions should be included.\u00a0 And I fully agree with the U.S. Bishops that, particularly from a Christian perspective of welcome, immigration reform is essential, not least as in relation to education and healthcare.<\/p>\n

So, I don\u2019t have a final answer concerning how Christians should thing about the Sebelius<\/em> case and the health care law.\u00a0 I hope, however, that we can try to think about it in more careful and theologically nuanced terms than usually surface in popular debates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have a post up on Jesus Creed.\u00a0 Here’s the text: Thursday last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius \u2013 the health care law case.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, the talk shows, the newspapers, the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook, and every other imaginable outlet are lit up with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law-and-policy"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p824rZ-DR","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidopderbeck.com\/tgdarkly\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}