[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11248-11249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, the Supreme Court issued a ruling last 
week that I wish to discuss for a few moments today. This decision 
marks a very important development in the ongoing debate our country is 
engaged in on the subject of religious freedom.
  In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court reported that the 
contraception coverage mandate imposed by the Affordable Care Act on 
family-owned companies such as Hobby Lobby stores and Conestoga Wood 
Specialties violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  These two companies are owned by individuals who have faith-based 
objections to providing access to contraceptives that can terminate a 
pregnancy.
  While it is true some faith-based institutions object to the mandate 
on religious grounds, their insurance companies which are covering them 
and their employees in that business are mandated to provide support 
for contraception. It is also true, but not really distinguished and 
noticed in the media, that there are a number of institutions which are 
saying: You can't couch this under the umbrella of contraception, you 
have to understand that what we are opposed to here is not all forms of 
birth control.
  Hobby Lobby has been clear to state that they fall under this 
category, although they oppose the morning-after pill and other 
contraceptives that induce abortions.
  The Supreme Court's ruling means employers such as Hobby Lobby or 
Grote Industries in my home State of Indiana--a family-run auto 
lighting company--will not be forced to take actions contrary to their 
religious beliefs. I applaud this ruling issued by the Court because 
freedom of religion is a core American principle guaranteed by our 
First Amendment, and through this decision the Court has affirmed that 
the administration simply can't pick and choose when and how or whether 
to adhere to the Constitution.
  While this ruling is a welcome positive step, it is important to note 
that religious freedom is still under attack across this country. It is 
under attack because the Court's ruling applies only to a very narrow 
rule, family-owned for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby, when many 
faith-based organizations, charities, hospitals, educational 
institutions are still required to facilitate insurance coverage that 
includes contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs despite their 
religious beliefs and despite their moral objections. Requiring these 
faith-based institutions and businesses to betray the fundamental 
tenets of their beliefs is, I believe, unconstitutional, and the 
administration's so-called accommodation is far from adequate in this 
fundamental breach of our First Amendment rights under our 
Constitution. Those impacted by this mandate are a large and diverse 
group that includes Indiana-based institutions such as Grace College in 
Winona Lake, IN, the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, and many 
other schools based on a religious foundation that find a moral and 
religious objection.
  Despite conscious objections and the University of Notre Dame's 
clearly outlined standards and values, Notre Dame was told by a Federal 
appeals court late last year that it must comply with the ObamaCare 
mandate, which they are appealing.
  My alma mater, one of those institutions, Wheaton College, was told 
by the Supreme Court only last week that it doesn't have to abide by 
the contraceptive coverage mandate until the judicial system determines 
whether the administration's requirement is valid over religious 
institutions and other nonprofits.
  Just an aside, it was surprising to read this morning in the Wall 
Street Journal that--in fact, it was disappointing and highly unusual--
despite the Court explicitly stating its decision to grant Wheaton 
College a temporary injunction ``should not be construed as an 
expression of the Court's views on the merits'' of Wheaton's case, 
having explicitly stated that, one Justice wrote a dissenting opinion 
in which she essentially decided on the merits of the Wheaton case 
herself. That is the first time, in my recollection. I don't follow 
every decision of the Supreme Court, but I follow many of them--but it 
is surprising that a Justice would allow their ideological passion on a 
particular issue to so mischaracterize the ruling of the Court that 
simply provided for an injunction to give the time for the court system 
to make a ruling.
  Nevertheless, that is not why I came to the floor this evening. I 
thought in terms of thinking through this issue and what I might say 
that it appears to be ideological bias on the Court that raised its 
ugly head here, and hopefully that will be retracted.
  But whether it is Wheaton College, whether it is Notre Dame or Grace 
College or numerous other institutions, it is important to understand 
that in many of these institutions a thread of faith, a stream of 
water, runs through everything they do in those organizations, and 
particularly in those schools of higher learning and those entities 
that provide social services through the food banks, through dealing 
with the homeless. The element of faith is important to their success, 
it is important to their results, and it is important to their beliefs.

[[Page 11249]]

  Whether it is faith in learning as the central part of institutions 
such as Notre Dame, Wheaton College, or others, or whether it is a 
homeless shelter in South Bend, IN--that is the combination of 
churches, university, city, county, some Federal funding, some local 
funding, and some volunteer funding--it is essential, as they have told 
me on one of my visits, that this ribbon of faith is essential to the 
success of their program and to the rehabilitation of those who walk 
through the front door, often homeless, and leave months and years 
later with the capabilities of full employment, gainful employment, and 
become homeowners instead of homeless.
  Whether it is food banks or homeless shelters or other important 
organizations, so many of these are meeting needs of people across this 
Nation. But these institutions are seeing this ribbon of faith and the 
free exercise of religion constrained and restricted by this 
administration's mandate under the Obama health care law.
  What is at stake here is of extreme significance. Established in the 
founding of our Nation and sustained for over 200 years, religious 
freedom is at the very core of our system of government, and protection 
of religious liberty means all people of all faiths have the right to 
exercise their faith within the bounds of our justice system even if 
their belief seems to some as misguided or flawed or flatout wrong. But 
what is unique about America and what is guaranteed in our Constitution 
is that we do not have the right to dictate to those people how to 
express their faith so long as they are within the bounds of justice, 
how to express their faith, live their faith, and employ their faith.
  Taking that right away from faith-based institutions is flatout wrong 
and I believe a violation of the most precious amendment to the 
Constitution. Faith-based institutions should not have to facilitate 
insurance coverage for products that are counter to their religious or 
moral beliefs. To require them to betray the fundamental tenets of 
their beliefs and accept this violation of their First Amendment rights 
guaranteed by the Constitution is simply wrong.
  In a joint statement released shortly after announcement of the Hobby 
Lobby decision, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Archbishop William Lori of 
Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious 
Liberty, said:

       Now is the time to redouble our effort to build a culture 
     that fully respects religious freedom.

  That is really what we are asking for. We are asking this 
administration to respect those institutions' and those individuals' 
religious freedom as guaranteed under our Constitution. Whether we 
agree with their tenets, whether we ideologically take a position in 
favor or not in favor, it is their right and it is guaranteed.
  I hope in the coming days the Supreme Court will strike down the 
administration's mandate for all faith-based institutions and rescind 
this unprecedented attack on religious freedom. While we await further 
action from the Court, now is the time for this body--the Senate--and 
all Americans of faith to stand for our country's longstanding right to 
the freedom of religion. It was the father of our country, after all, 
George Washington, who once said:

       I have often expressed my sentiment, that every man, 
     conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable 
     to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be 
     protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates 
     of his own conscience.

  We today know that reference to ``every man'' also includes every 
woman and every human being, the right to be accountable to God alone 
for their religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the 
Deity according to the dictates of their own conscience--not the 
dictates of a Federal Government that says ``We know better,'' not the 
dictates of those who simply say ``We will interpret that liberty to 
our satisfaction to accomplish our purposes.'' As in Washington's 
times, we must defend these rights of conscience and preserve religious 
liberty for all Americans regardless of their choice of belief and 
expression of their faith.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________