Have you ever heard of a moral exemption clause? It’s a rule that grants legal exemptions to people who have a deeply held moral belief.

This comes up, for example, when say a Catholic college refuses to write prescriptions for birth control.

But this practice is being challenged by the new health-care law, which requires insurance plans to provide contraception without co-pays.

Catholicism prohibits the use of contraception and perceives the law as an attack on their faith. Under the current law, Catholic colleges would have to pay for and provide something they find morally objectionable.

So, to find a way around the new requirements, Catholic colleges are refusing to prescribe birth control. The colleges argue that they are private institutions and if people don’t like the policy they are free to go elsewhere.

Moral exemptions are tricky. Obviously no one wants to write a law that would unfairly conflict with a person’s faith. We wouldn’t pass a law that requires all Americans to eat pork, for example. Furthermore, Catholic universities are private institutions.

On the other hand, denying women birth control can lead to unintended pregnancies (4 out of 10 end in abortion). It is also argued that treatment is ultimately the decision of the patient not the doctor.

Moral exemptions made the news a few months ago when Michigan Republicans tried to add an amendment on an anti-bullying bill that would exempt “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

The crux of the issue is this: When does religious freedom infringe on the civil rights of others and, should that happen, which one should win?

There is no clear answer to this question. We would love to hear your thoughts on this vexing issue.