President Barack Obama’s health care mandate requiring religious-affiliated hospitals to provide contraceptives to their employees recently received a firestorm of opposition from religious affiliates. As a non-ideological independent, I was quite skeptical of both sides of the argument.

Having actually read the provision, and in large part ignoring the ridiculousness in the media, I can safely say that I am in support of the mandate. Obama’s “compromise,” of course, renders the provision obsolete. I believe this was purely a political move (in the modern sense). I, personally, anticipated that Obama would buckle under religious pressure.

Unfortunately, the media has once again misconstrued a legal provision in an attempt to expand upon rightist dogma. They are calling it a “war against Christianity.” How adorable it is that the religious should be incited to rebel against a public provision on the basis of “war.” As a further matter, the claim that Obama’s mandate “requires all religious organizations to cover birth control for their employees” is inherently false. The mandate specifically details which religious organizations are exempt.

For the misinformed, here is the actual reading found in the regulatory code for organizations who are exempt from the mandate: Subsection B, “A ‘religious employer’ is an organization that meets all of the following criteria: (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization, (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization, (3) The organization primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the organization, and (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in 6033 (a)(1) and section 6033 (a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code 1986, as amended.”

The organizations that meet these criteria are untouched by the provision, and are not forced to provide conflicting health care services to employees. In addition, 28 states already use this same exemption language in their health care plans.

In terms of stare decisis — the obligation to follow legal precedent — we find that the constitutionality of a similar provision has been tested under state law. For example, in the 2004 court case Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, the Supreme Court of California found that requiring employer health plans to cover birth control — except those that meet the same “religious employer” exemption — do not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to further examine the case.

An employer who does not meet the criteria and hires a diverse set of employees — who do not hold the tenets of the faith — cannot deny coverage. Employees should be allowed access to a public program, and private organizations should not be allowed to religiously discriminate against their diverse employees’ actions. When an organization decides to hire tenets outside the parameters of its faith, it immediately assumes the responsibility to service health care plans to its employees, despite conscience contradiction.

This of course bears the question, “Is universal health care a right or a privilege?” If it is a right, then nonexempt religious affiliates must not deny that right. If it is a privilege, then the decision should be left up to the employer.

Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 reads, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”

In addition, Article 12 of the U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 reads, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The U.S. is a signatory to each of these U.N. treaties. To deny these would be to usurp the salient purpose of “health care reform,” and it would therefore render the entire concept obsolete.

Does the First Amendment prove this mandate to be unconstitutional? The matter concerns itself with a “conscience clause,” which can be quite difficult to determine. In previous columns, I’ve written that the Constitution cannot specifically define virtues and vices or rights and wrongs.

The First Amendment may have the power to exercise a conscience clause and protect a religious sect from specific discrimination. However, under this context, no religious faith is specifically discriminated against. This is a general mandate that applies to all organizations, secular and nonsecular.

The Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith 1990 should help to clarify the discrimination factor. This court ruling found that laws that apply generally, and do not single out religious groups, might be upheld even if they intrude on religious practices.

Religions should be allowed to exercise their faiths to the extent that they do not impinge upon the rights or privileges guaranteed to the citizenry through legal federal provisions. The government should only operate up to the extent that it does not impinge upon religious conscience and belief, which is another right to the citizenry. Under this circumstance, the government is operating to provide affordable health care to women, and it has not in any context shown direct hostility to the teachings of the church, or any other nonsecular affiliate.