Controversy Surrounding Decision to Revoke Healthcare Cover for Students by Wheaton College

This article discusses the controversy surrounding Wheaton College's decision to revoke healthcare cover for students due to the provision of contraceptives in the healthcare act. It explores the ethical implications and beliefs of the institution. The article also highlights the right of religious institutions to contest laws that violate their beliefs.

Running Head: ETHICS AND CONTROVERSIAL DECSIONS 1
Controversy Surrounding Decision to Revoke Healthcare Cover for Students by Wheaton
College
Institution
Professor
Student Name
Student ID

ETHICS AND CONTOVERSIAL DECSIONS 2
Controversy Surrounding Decision to Revoke Healthcare Cover for Students by
Wheaton College
Wheaton college and craft store Hobby Lobby are in the middle of a controversy relating
to provision of health care coverage. According to the health care act, employers are to offer
medical coverage for their employees and for Wheaton’s college case, students as well
(Grossman and Reuters (2015). Insofar as medical coverage in general is concerned, the two
parties have no objection. The problem arises in a sections of the Obama healthcare bill requiring
the educational institution and business to offer coverage for contraceptives. In protest to this
law, the institution has rescinded the provision of general healthcare in order to stay clear from
violating it. The problem is one of ethics as it involves the beliefs of the organizations, which
they feel are violated.
According to Carrol (2014), the healthcare bill requires the learning institution to offer
coverage for preventive measures for women. The directive as per the law directly interferes
with the beliefs of the learning institution. However, McDonough (2015) points out that the
healthcare law provides that if the law breaches the beliefs of the organizations, these institutions
should notify the healthcare insurers. Also, instead of informing third party insurance companies,
the various institutions have the option of notifying the government directly. Wheaton college is
a Christian learning institution whose values and principles are based on Christian teaching and
the Bible. The institution’s beliefs are in line with what the Catholic church teaches on the use of
contraceptives. Rightfully by law (Protect Thy Neighbor, 2017), the religious affiliated
institution can object to provisions of the healthcare law.

ETHICS AND CONTOVERSIAL DECSIONS 3
The right to exercise religion is enshrined in the constitution. Wheaton College and the
Hobby Lobby Company have thus the right to object to being burdened by the healthcare law to
forego their religious beliefs and principles. According to Christianity, one of the roles of human
beings, under the institution of marriage is to procreate (BBC, 2009). The use of contraceptives
hinders them from performing this role. It is important to understand that is the Christian
teaching also that children are considered blessing and their existence should not be hindered for
reasons that may be selfish. The health care act forces these institutions to go against this belief
through its provisions. It is ethical that Wheaton College and the Hobby Lobby Company should
want to protect what they hold to be true.
According to the constitution in the United States, when a law is formulated but lies in
direct violation to what is enshrined in the constitution, then it is without significance or function
(American Constitution Society, 2018). The Healthcare bill provides directives that lies in a
previously enacted law to practice religion freely. In this line of reasoning, it would be sensible
to conclude that that some of the healthcare sections are null. These sections that interfere with
the faith of the citizens are null in other words. This could have prompted the learning institution
to move to court to claim what is right according to the law and their beliefs. Liptak (2014)
argues that Wheaton College places complexities into the matter when there is actually no need
for them. Despite there being provisions for exemptions to provide coverage for preventive
measures, the learning institution takes the position that their freedom is violated.
Pashman (2015) explains that despite the exemptions provided for by the law, the
government through law still forces the religious affiliated institutions against their will.
Bypassing the responsibility of providing to provide health care to the said extents still violates
their beliefs. Handing over this responsibility is regarded as facilitating abortion or actions

ETHICS AND CONTOVERSIAL DECSIONS 4
against their faith. Therefore, Wheaton College moved to court of appeal to object to the
provisions provided. This action receives criticisms from various fronts including presiding
judges of the appeal court. In one part, the institution is criticized for causing complexities that
are unnecessary as all they have to do is to hand over the responsibility that violates their faith. It
is necessary to point out that the two factions, the learning institution and the judiciary are
guided by different principles. In as far as the place of human beings in procreation is concerned,
the two parties have different stands. When the two struggle to bring out they are right in their
perceptions as opposed to others, problems arise. However, it is necessary to respect the beliefs
of others and in this case, Wheaton College.
In conclusion, the question of whether it is ethical or not for Wheaton College to revoke
provision for healthcare coverage, the institution has the right to contest the law for what it
believes to be right. It is ethical to stand by what one believes in as long as it does not injure
another. The learning institution has shown commendable dedication and commitment to what
they hold to be the truth. As with other organizations, they also have principles that guide their
actions and these separate them from other institutions.

ETHICS AND CONTOVERSIAL DECSIONS 5
Reference
BBC (2009.). Contraception [Online]. Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_1.shtml
[accessed on May 24, 2018
Carrol. A. E (2014). How Hobby Lobby Ruling Could Limit Access to Birth Control. The New York
Time [Online]. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/upshot/how-hobby-
lobby-ruling-could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html?ref=us&_r=0 [accessed on 23 May
24, 2018]
Grossman C. L and Reuters (2015). Wheaton drops student health insurance to avoid Obamacare
contraception mandate. Religious news service [Online]. Available at
https://religionnews.com/2015/08/02/wheaton-drops-student-health-insurance-to-avoid-
obamacare-contraception-mandate/ [accessed on 23 May 24, 2018]
Liptak. A. (2014). Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices. The New York times.
[Online]. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-
court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html [accessed on 23 May
24, 2018]
McDonough. K (2015). In a move to block birth control access, Wheaton College just canceled
health insurance for all students. Splinter [Online]. Available at
https://splinternews.com/in-a-move-to-block-birth-control-access-wheaton-colleg-
1793849627 [accessed on 23 May 24, 2018]

ETHICS AND CONTOVERSIAL DECSIONS 6
Pashman. M. B (2015) Wheaton College ends coverage amid fight against birth control
mandate. Chicago Tribune [Online]. Available at
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wheaton-college-ends-
student-insurance-met-20150728-story.html [accessed on 23 May 24, 2018]
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2018) American Constitution Society [Online]. Available at
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/religious-freedom-restoration-act [accessed on 23
May 24, 2018
Religious Restoration Act (2017) Protect Thy Neighbor & Americans United For Separation Of
Church And State [Online]. Available at http://www.protectthyneighbor.org/religious-
freedom-restoration-acts/ [accessed on 23 May 24, 2018