Image by Getty Images

To the Editor:

In their [article in these pages](“Why are liberal Jewish organizations undermining religious liberty?,”), Howard Slugh and Mitchell Rocklin completely misconstrue the Anti-Defamation League’s long history of religious freedom advocacy and the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.

For over a century, ADL has been an ardent advocate for the religious freedom of Jews and all Americans. To that end, we have filed legal briefs in support of employee and inmate religious accommodations, the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the ministerial employee exception for houses of worship. In Congress, we advocated for stronger religious accommodations in the workplace and military.

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.

Terms(Required)

I agree to the Forward's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Email(Required)

But this case has nothing to do with accommodating Sabbath observers or other religious practices. It involves the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which requires employer health insurance policies to cover prescription contraception without cost sharing. Houses of worship are already fully exempt from it. And religiously affiliated groups and close corporations with religious objections can opt out of it simply by submitting a one-page form or short letter. This opt-out provision protects religious liberty.

The new rules before the Court are essentially a license to discriminate against women. They exempt virtually any employer, including large public corporations, with a religious or moral objection. The term “moral objection” is so broad that it could encompass almost anything.

In our day-to-day work, ADL tirelessly works to secure accommodations for Jews and others in schools, the workplace and public accommodations. But our religiously diverse society could not function without some reasonable limits on accommodations. ADL’s position in this case simply mirrors longstanding precedent that the First Amendment’s religion clauses are a shield for faith, not a sword to harm others.

Joseph Berman

Chair, Legal Affairs Committee

ADL (the Anti-Defamation League)

Mr. Berman is an attorney and litigator in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Forward is free to read, but it isn’t free to produce

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

This is a great time to support independent Jewish journalism you rely on. Make a gift today!

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Support our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

$90 $180

$360

Other amount