It may be a new law now... so i would think the question is, is it constitutional in regards to religious institutions.
I see nothing unconstitutional about it in regards to religious organizations. The first amendment is not absolute. Polygamy laws have been upheld as constitutional despite some religions preaching polygamy as a spiritual duty. If a church were to say that it's against their doctrines to pay overtime, would that be sufficient to exempt a church from paying overtime to is employees? If a church said it was against its doctrine to submit to search warrants, would that create an exception that prevented the police from executing an otherwise valid search warrant?
The first amendment protects the church from government interference in what it may teach regarding spiritual matters. But religious freedom does not create an exemption from laws enacted by the legislature that are not religious by nature. The heath care law is a law that deals with accessibility to affordable health care, in accordance with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. That is the issue the law is designed to address. The birth control issue is merely a provision of that law, and as such does not constitutes nothing more than Congress' lawful power under the commerce clause. Birth control is a common and basic form of preventative treatment, which aids people in their own family planning, as well as having additional applications that could lead a doctor to prescribe medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention. The church's first amendment rights are not violated by being required, because the church is not being required by the government to teach anything regarding birth control. The church still remains free to teach its position on birth control, and the church's followers remain free to either use or not use birth control based on their personal decisions and the advice of their physicians.
Not offering birth control is sub par health care?
Yes, I would say so, as the issue applies here. It's medicine based on someone else's ideology, instead of it being based on the needs of the patient. Birth control treatments are an ordinary part of modern day medicine. People choose to use or not use such treatments based on their personal family planning desires and the advice of their doctors for their overall health. There are applications for some birth control options that are completely unrelated to pregnancy, or that make one or the other birth control method more desirable. It's not much different, in essence, then the parents of sick children who refuse medical treatment in favor of trying to pray for God to cure their children.
If so .. i do hope they quit their jobs and find others that provide what they want.
Well, that's a lovely thought. But it really misses the point. The health care law covers all employers. The church should not be an exception. Like I said, someone has to do it. If employer health insurance packages are going to be part of the system that we're using to make affordable health care accessible to all Americans, then saying that someone should just quit their job and (hope and pray that they can) find a new one is antithetical to that. It's like telling someone, "Well, sucks if your husband beats you, just leave him and find a new one, no need to have the government involved by making it a crime and prosecuting him and going through all the hassle of a trial."
