Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Conflicts in making laws

Friday, April 9, 1999 | 11:55 a.m.

NOTHING IS MORE dangerous than legislation that gets over into the arena of religion. Although it may not specifically name any religion, the design of legislation can be an open challenge to the beliefs of some people. A couple of examples that, if passed as written, will create some fireworks well beyond the Fourth of July could include Assembly Bill 60 and Senate Bill 385. Both bills can be amended to defuse them before landing on the governor's desk.

AB60 as presently written can be damaging to two of Nevada's finest health care providers. St. Rose Dominican Hospital in Henderson and St. Mary's Hospital in Reno are open targets of this bill, which demands they provide prescriptive contraceptive drugs or devices. This flies in the face of the religious organizations that have founded and run these hospitals for several decades. Both hospitals have been serving Nevadans of all races, creeds and economic levels.

AB60 gives the hospitals a weasel way out of this dilemma as follows:

"Any insurance company which is owned or operated by a religious organization (as defined in 26 USC 3121(w)(3)(A)) which has religious tenets which conflict with the requirements of this act shall provide for the coverage of prescription contraceptive methods as required under this section through another such entity offering a limited benefit plan. The cost, terms and availability of such coverage shall not differ from the cost, terms and availability of other prescription coverage offered to the insured."

This is about as brazen as a sneak can be expected to act. Very simply, it's like telling a group of people that what we want you to do is wrong, but it will be OK if you have somebody else do it for you. Also, it's a game that both hospitals and their church refuse to play.

Rod Davis, CEO of St. Rose Dominican, wrote, "With the adoption of the Church amendment to the Public Health Service Act of 1973, entities have been allowed to seek protection from federal requirements not consistent with their religious beliefs or moral convictions. It is unfortunate that this amendment, which would have the State of Nevada cut back on this protection of conscience, has been adopted by the Committee. A more simple amendment, which honored the religious beliefs of the organization, was submitted to the Committee."

The simple amendment suggested by both Davis and Jeff K. Bills of St. Mary's are the several insertions of, "Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with any religious-based insurer whose religious tenets are in conflict with the requirements of this Act. ..."

Then there are concerns of the Anti-Defamation League about SB385, which establishes a program for voucher schools. The ADL views SB385 as written as resulting in the crossing of the line separating churches and public schools. They, like the vast majority of American people, don't want public funds to be expended in parochial schools. This was expressed on the record as, "The constitutionally mandated separation of church and state is a core American value vital to protecting religious freedoms."

A letter from the Las Vegas Community Office of the ADL signed by President Susan Fine goes on to point out, "In addition, this bill raises serious issues of equity. In particular, we are concerned that students interested and eligible to attend voucher schools are limited to voucher schools within their school district. Since there are fewer private schools in poor neighborhoods, the vast percentage of poor children would be turned away. Thus a few students would receive private education at public expense, while the needs of the majority of poor students will be bypassed.

"Moreover, although under SB385 voucher schools may not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, nothing in the legislation would prohibit the exclusion of students on the basis of religion, gender, ability to speak English, or mental or physical disabilities."

Obviously the 1999 Nevada Legislature has some further discussion, homework and amending to do before either AB60 or SB385 are ready for passage. Actually there's no good reason that both bills can't be improved and amended to take the unnecessary religious sting from them.

Legislation getting over into areas of strong religious beliefs can become more destructive than constructive. Sometimes it can't be helped and there are reasonable conflicts between some laws and religious beliefs. Staying within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution and related federal statutes when making state laws and local ordinances is a fairly safe and reasonable approach for legislators to use.