To the Editor:

Two weeks ago, “The Creightonian” published an article [“The politics of religion seen in 2012 race”] asserting that Obama’s Affordable Care Act infringes upon the religious liberties afforded to Americans under the First Amendment of the constitution. While I certainly support [Kathleen] Ambre’s right to an opinion regarding this apparent infringement of religious liberties (as I should per the same First Amendment she relies upon), I would like to offer an alternative view on the issue.

Paramount to understanding the First Amendment as it relates to religious freedoms is the knowledge of the fact that, in terms of freedom of religion, the First Amendment works negatively and not positively. That is to say, while the First Amendment very clearly does not explicitly promote any one religion, it does state that the government, in most cases, is not allowed to interfere with an individual’s practicing of religion. It also enforces the commonly referenced idea of separation of church and state, which bans the government from officially establishing or promoting any religion.

This is important because while the government is in effect not allowed to prevent any individual from practicing religion, neither is it able to infringe upon any individual who chooses not to practice religion. Under the First Amendment, then, the government must equally defend both the right of individuals to practice religion, and the separation of church and state, which as a byproduct, allows individuals who wish not to be religious to act accordingly.

Ambre certainly recognizes this in stating that “the First Amendment … gives those against Obama’s proposed legislation the constitutional right to express [their own] values;” she goes awry, though, when she notes the important question of “whether or not the government is inhibiting the ability for one to practice his or her religion.”

Her answer is clear: in forcing religious business owners to pay for health care for their employees, and as such possibly forcing those same owners to pay for employees’ contraception, Obama is indeed inhibiting the right of individuals to practice religion freely.

What she clearly fails to take into account, however, are the rights of individuals who, for whatever reason, choose not to practice religion. For such individuals, restricting access to contraception would be as much of a violation of rights as she purports it to be for religious individuals.

Though this apparent battle of rights over contraception has thus far been based around the assumption that access to contraception is a religious issue, I believe that looking at the issue from another direction — the direction which asserts that affordable access to contraception is a human rights issue, and not a religious one — changes things altogether.

Clearly, though, the thought of addressing contraception as a human rights issue instead of a religious one is completely outlandish to some, and as such, it may be more appropriate to finish off by restating what I believe to be the most important counter to Ambre’s original argument: the idea that it is the duty of government, and accordingly of Obama, to defend the rights of all individuals, not just those who choose to practice religion.

Were Obama to take the stance that contraception should be illegal, or more realistically, unaffordable to most, he would be pleasing those who feel that cheap access to contraceptives is a violation of religious liberty, while simultaneously violating the rights of those for whom religion is not a consideration.

Take this the other way around and allow cheap access to contraceptives, and suddenly Obama is both keeping the nonreligious satisfied and allowing the religious to choose whether or not to take advantage of cheap contraception.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from all of this should be the fact that it might be time to stop thinking about contraception as a religious issue, for it is not. But in keeping with the spirit of this response, I believe that Ambre’s concern about Obama’s apparent infringement upon religious liberty is unfounded if for no other reason than that it completely disregards the rights of the nonreligious to live as they choose under the constitutional bill of rights.

If nothing else then, let us remember that the First Amendment is intended to provide freedom of speech and expression to all, not just those who choose to outwardly practice religion. And in that light, I would much rather have a president who allows access to contraceptives to those who need it than one who forces an entire country to live by the rules of a small number of people whose beliefs about the rights of women seem permanently stuck in a past century.

John Darwin