No matter what you believe, you should be concerned. Religious freedom, the cause for which this country was founded, is being challenged – and the impact will be felt by everyone.

The issue that brings this up again is the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The liberal mainstream media would have you believe this is about Christians discriminating against gays but it’s really about so much more.

When cases like this one get lots of media attention it’s easy to conclude that religious freedom is about Christians who are intolerant of cultural trends. But religious freedom affects everyone and the court dockets reflect that.

Luke W. Goodrich, a lawyer with The Becket Fund, represented Hobby Lobby and The Little Sisters of the Poor in their religious freedom cases that won victories from SCOTUS. He has studied the history of religious freedom cases and writes of his findings in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal.

Goodrich and Rachel Busick conducted a study examining more than 10,000 federal cases decided in the last five years. They report the following findings:

• Religious freedom cases represent only 1% of all federal cases
• Half of those 1% involve inmates challenging prison policies or asylum seekers claiming religious persecution in their native countries
• Religious freedom cases involving nonincarcerated citizens are less than 0.5% of all federal cases

 

Furthermore, successful religious freedom claims are even rarer. Many claims are dismissed on procedural grounds before a ruling on the merits of the claim. Of those that remain, most lose.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided both the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases in favor of the plaintiffs. But of 10,000 cases decided in the past five years, only four others were victorious in their claims of religious freedom. Here’s the surprise – none of these four involved Christian issues.

The four victories were for:

• Muslims challenging an anti-Sharia law
• Native Americans challenging a ban on killing eagles
• Reality TV stars challenging a ban on polygamy
• Atheists challenging a Ten Commandments monument

 

Even more surprising is the disproportional share of religious freedom cases brought by non-Christian minorities. Here are examples:

• Hindus brought cases 5 times their share of the population
• Native Americans brought cases 10 times their share of the population
• Muslims brought cases 17 times their share of the population

 

In contrast, Christians were involved in only one-fourth as many cases as their share of the population.

Goodrich summarizes his findings: “That means that religious freedom protections remain especially important for non-Christian minorities. But it also raises a question: Why is there so much hand-wringing about a handful of religious-liberty cases brought by Christians?”

He explains that the political left is applying a double standard. If religious freedom is invoked by a favored minority, it is legitimate. But if it is invoked by a Christian with traditional moral views, it is seen as an excuse for hate. Progressives engage in culture-war bullying when religious liberty would stand in the way of their social views.

This is much like the double standard applied on our college campuses. Freedom of speech is worth defending if your views agree with those on the left, who represent the majority on most campuses. But when conservatives want to present their views in a similar fashion their speech is intolerable and condemned.

The proof of this double standard is evident in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. One of the Colorado state commissioners called the Christian baker’s religious freedom claim “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use – to use their religion to hurt others.”

But the essence of religious freedom is the right to live according to your beliefs even when others may think you are wrong.

Goodrich concludes:

“So when Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, stands before the Supreme Court Tuesday, he may have some unlikely allies rooting for him: non-Christian religious minorities. Those groups know better than anyone that religious liberty protects the “right to be wrong.” They have been the main beneficiaries of religious liberty victories in the past, and they will be in the future. You might say a victory for Masterpiece Cakeshop would be a victory for everyone.”

 

It’s good to trust your doctor. He or she has spent many years of higher education and hard work preparing to give you good advice on your healthcare and the best treatment available. Your doctor will usually know what’s best for your medical condition.

However, when it comes to knowing what’s best for healthcare reform you should be more skeptical. Your doctor is probably too busy to really stay informed.

That’s my conclusion from reading the latest results of The Great American Physician Survey for 2017. Physicians Practice takes this survey annually and this year used the responses of 826 physicians to draw their conclusions. Here are the key points in the responses:

 

• 73% want preservation of pre-existing conditions coverage
• 66% want regulations of the cost of medicines
• 51% want increased competition among health insurers
• Physician work satisfaction averaged only 6.68 on a scale of 1 to 10
• Nearly one third (31%) are employed by a hospital or institution
• Less than half (45%) would choose the same career path again

 

Respondents were asked to give the Trump administration a grade for healthcare reform thus far. Their responses:

• 40% – F
• 21% – C
• 18% – B
• 12% – D
• 9% – A

 

I was most disappointed in the personal responses given when asked to clarify their opinions. Those who gave the Trump administration an “F” seemed to blame them for failure to fix ObamaCare. That’s reasonable given that Republicans ran on a platform of repealing and replacing the broken healthcare law.

However, explanations for their opinions revealed misinformation. Some blamed Trump for failing to have a plan to replace ObamaCare – but the problem was really that Republicans failed to stick together on the plan they had and Democrats failed to participate in fixing the problems at all. Others feared for loss of coverage for pre-existing conditions – when they were never threatened by Republican proposals.

Lack of bipartisanship in Congress was a frequently cited complaint. But this problem was started by the Democrats in 2010 when they passed ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. Ideally, the Democrats should have participated in the recent efforts to fix the problems but instead of choosing that path they chose continued partisan opposition.

The most shocking statistic in the survey was revealed when 56% favored a single-payer healthcare system. The reasons given included “healthcare dollars are being spent one way or another” – an incredibly naïve response. A pediatrician expressed a desire to see our healthcare system “mirror other countries healthcare systems to get a better idea for covering people.” Clearly she had no idea how single-payer systems in these countries are working or she would know their ideas are not better.

These physicians have failed to educate themselves on the real-world results of single-payer healthcare. In every country where it has been tried or exists today, the healthcare outcomes have been poorer and delays in treatment have been greater. Furthermore, the costs are so prohibitive that all other federal spending suffers greatly. (For more on single-payer healthcare see my Archives.)

Physicians are dedicated people who want to provide good patient care. But most are too busy to really stay informed on the subject of healthcare reform. Most simply want to be able to provide care to their patients without consideration of the patient’s insurance coverage, the cost of the treatment, the cost to the society, or the paperwork required. This in part explains the exodus from private practice to hospital-based medicine because those considerations become the hospital’s problems instead of their own.

I understand their point-of-view – because I was once misinformed as they are. I just wanted to “be a doctor” instead of a practice administrator. I wished for “universal coverage” because I naively thought that would “let doctors be doctors” and solve all our problems.

But good intentions will not solve our healthcare problems. Physicians who want the best for their patients and their families in the future must educate themselves to the real issues this country is facing in the healthcare reform debate. We who live in the United States enjoy the best healthcare system in the world. But maintaining that status demands improvements in the system that will allow us to continue to deliver the quality we all want at a price we can all afford.

Physicians, of all Americans, must participate in this healthcare debate – but they must be informed in order to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.