The decision last week by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reject the appeals of scores of religious leaders and retain a very narrow “religious” exemption from Obamacare’s so-called contraception mandate has ignited an uproar among Catholic leaders, as well it should — because it’s hard to fathom a government dictate more offensive than this one.
Here’s how we got where we are: Obamacare includes within its massive delegation of power to the federal government the authority to define what constitutes “preventive services” that must be covered by all health-insurance plans sold and purchased in the United States, including plans sponsored by employers. Services defined by HHS as preventive for purposes of this provision are required under the new law to be covered by the insurer or employer with no charge to the insurance plan’s enrollees.
Advertisement
Last August, in the course of writing a rule that would determine preventive health services for women, HHS decided that free contraception and sterilization services are a must. As a practical matter, that means all health-insurance plans sold in the United States in the very near future will include full coverage of products that terminate pregnancies, since some products classified by the FDA as contraceptives — and thus covered under the HHS definition — also act as abortifacients. While it is true that many insurance plans cover such products today, that’s mainly been the choice of the insurers and employers sponsoring the plans. HHS has now made such coverage obligatory nationwide, thus forcing tens of millions of pro-life Americans to pay for “services” with their health-insurance premiums that they find morally objectionable. (Grandfathered plans are exempt from this and other Obamacare rules, but the number qualifying for grandfathered status is expected to decline precipitously in the next couple of years.)
Bad as all that is, it gets worse. Not only must Catholics who work for non-Catholic employers pay for such products with their premiums, HHS also wants religious employers to cover such products in their health plans. Knowing that Catholic leaders and others would strongly object to this requirement, HHS included in the regulation issued last August a narrow exemption from this requirement for employers that are basically houses of worship. Much larger religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic universities, hospitals, and charitable enterprises, do not fit within the HHS exemption.
Not surprisingly, Catholic leaders were more than alarmed by the promulgation of this rule and have spent the time since its publication imploring the Obama White House and HHS to reverse course and loosen the exemption definition so that the full array of Catholic institutions and social-service agencies could get out from under this onerous and pernicious requirement. Among the more prominent groups that have weighed in on this are Catholic Charities USA, the University of Notre Dame, and the network of Catholic hospitals that serve millions of U.S. patients every year.
This is not exactly a who’s-who list of the Catholic Right. If ever there were a group of Catholic institutions to which you would think that the Obama administration would want to be accommodating, this would be it.
And so, what was the administration’s reaction to the pleadings of these friendly leaders? Basically, the back of the hand. Last Friday, Secretary Sebelius announced that religious organizations that do not fit within the previously stated exemption criteria will have only one additional year to comply with the regulation’s requirements.
"that means all health-insurance plans sold in the United States in the very near future will include full coverage of products that terminate pregnancies, since some products classified by the FDA as contraceptives — and thus covered under the HHS definition — also act as abortifacients."
The FDA classifies some drugs (like PlanB) that terminate pregnancies as contraceptives.
RightEveryTime is right again. But even if he wasn't right on the specifics (which he is), the main point remains, despite the article title, that since birth control also goes against Catholic doctrince, and Protestant doctrine in some circles, these organizations are going to have to violate their own consciences to comply with Federal law. Read the article before you comment. It will save us all some time.
Bob, providing insurance to someone who then has the option of using contraception and having it paid for, does not violate the church's conscience. The church is not providing nor paying for contraception, any more than the church is providing a hernia operation or pain medication. The church affiliated company, in addition to giving the employee an income, and vacation, is providing medical insurance coverage, not medical services. The patient still and always has their own choices to make, and may or may not choose to make that choice in line with church doctrine. The church can not make that choice for them. Let's put this another way: By employing the person, the church is providing an income to the person, which the person can spend any way he or she wants. If he or she chooses to purchase anything which goes against church doctrine, it is incorrect for the church to now claim that it is now providing those goods or services to the employee against its own doctrine. The church is merely providing, for all employees, the means by which the employee may or may not choose to "violate church mission". The employee chooses to use the income for that purpose themselves.
The government wins either way. Either the Catholic Charities and hospitals remain open, but supports abortion, in which case the Catholic Church would have to close its doors-they would no longer be doing what Jesus commanded.
Or the Catholic Charities and hospitals remain open, but no longer hires and supports non-cathoics (and fires all noncatholics) in which case the Catholic Church is still not doing what Jesus commanded.
Or the Catholic Church closes Catholic Charities and hospitals. Then the federal government comes in and takes over, and we all live according to their moral code: abortion, abortifacients, and killing those who it determines will not live for long.
Government as religion.
In 1938 Hitler offered to ship Jews to any country that would accept them in luxury liners. That was aimed at FDR's criticism of Kristallnacht. The hyprocracy was Hitler knew unemployment in America was very high after the second crash in 1937. Americans could not accept a wave of new job seekers from overseas. Immigration law also required an applicant show means of support in order gain entrance. So Hitler confiscated 90% of Jewish property and wealth before a Pass Port was issued to them. When the immigration rules were not relaxed by Congress Hitler then claimed that the "nation" didn't want the Jews either. . One lone Congressman advocated increased quotas for refugees A relative unknown representative from the Texas Hill country by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson. Holland however relaxed her immigration rules and accepted larger quotas than America did. Those who did not accept the "generous" offer were by sick Nazi reasoning accomplices in the Holocaust.
People of religous consciousness are now forced to fund mass abortions.
Beware of the Wrath of God!
America has zero right to 3!tch on this one--as well as on Obamacare, the DOJ, the domestic-energy impasse and our current foreign policy. I mean, what did we expect?
Not only did we elect Obama, but we also gave him supermajorities in both houses.
We are talking about the country that worships the culture of "buyer beware." We don't even buy an electric toothbrush without first informing ourselves of other users' experiences and reviews, digging online for any possible fly in the ointment that may steer our dollars towards another product. Yet, we put our collective critical thinking on hold four years ago, and we embraced the scam that is Obama--giving him not only the presidency, but also a safe legislative sandbox to play with at his Marxist's heart content.
And no, it was not only die-hard Liberals who elected him. I know--both personally and by reputation--of scores of otherwise prudent conservatives who were willing to "give this man a chance." Even here on NRO, as I recall, there were columnists writing to that effect. Perhaps it was for his carefully-choreographed and aggressively marketed star-power, or for the racial catharsis that his election would have represented in our own mind, for being part of this "historic" election (BTW, the sack of Rome was historic too); I don't know. But we had all the information to know better.
His past as the most liberal senator in the house, as a present-voting political opportunist, as a Chicago-style Machiavellian thug, as someone associated by friendship with left-wing terrorists and other scandal-ridden operatives, as someone more than comfortable with racial revanchism, as a proponent of socialized medicine, as an aggressive redistributionist who went on record to trash the rules imposed by the Constitution--all these things were a Google search away. But no.
So, we elect a man with these qualities promising to remake America; he follows through and remakes many of our institutions in a way consistent with his worldview; and what do we do now, act surprised and shocked? Aside from the true die-hard leftists and (sad to say) a black constituency that voted for him based on the color of his skin, what excuse do the rest of us have for giving Obama that high an office, and a legislative supermajority to boot?
So, yes, Mr. Capretta, all of this is regrettable. But we should have known better. I am not holding my breath for his leaving Pennsylvania Avenue next January--given the fact that, in the meantime, we've also reelected someone as aggressively contemptible as Barney Frank and as unctuously nasty as Harry Reid. But I bet our Angie's-List-recommended plumber has worked out just peachy...
Just before the election in '08 , parishioners in the Albany diocese were read a letter from Bishop Howard Hubbard in which we were told it would not be incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic faith to vote for Obama. I have long since abandoned any hope that Howard Hubbard would defend the Catholic faith, but even I am surprised by the swiftness of the confirmation of the folly of a Catholic endorsement of Barak Obama. Even after the presentation of this existential threat to the Church, can any Catholic imagine a full-throated denouncement of Barak Obama issued from the pulpit? Christ told us that hell would never prevail against the gates of his Church, but in the meantime I pray we can defend it against the liberal death wish that drives our own bishops.
I guess you didn't go to church this past Sunday. There was a letter drafted by the bishops and read at every mass this past weekend denouncing this rule by Sebelius.
A few priests chose not to read it, put it was read by the majority of priests across the country.
Two weeks ago the Pope made a strong statement to the American bishops in anticipation of this ruling and they got their marching orders. You can google the popes' and the bishops' letters.
There seem to be few or no bishops in the US who have the moral courage to publicly excommunicate anyone, much less a politician.
If it is her soul you are concerned with, she has likely already suffered automatic excommunication (latae sentenciae) by her own actions (Canon Law para. 1369).
By the way, her maiden name is Gilligan. Her father was John Gilligan, a one-term governor of Ohio (D) 1971-1974. Irish Catholic.
"Congress shall make no law pertaining to the establishment of religion ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Unless, or course, you're a religious insitution that employs people. Congress has mandated that such employers provide insurance or pay a fine, and Congress has mandated that the insurance provided must violate those people's religious beliefs.
Well, they now define religion as the belief system in your head, and since they can't, yet, manipulate your actual thoughts, you are always free to practice your religion. Anything else falls under various regulations and labor laws.
In Soviet Russia you were free to believe anything you wanted in your head too. Soon we shall know such true freedoms.
Liberals' prattling about "separation of church and state" does have this corollary: Religious institutions will no longer be able to perform secular services (soup kitchens, hospitals, adoption services, etc.) without being subject to the dictates of secular governments.
The result is to drive religious institutions out of charity and medical work, and have the government do all charity work (a.k.a. welfare) instead. Which is just what the Left has always wanted anyway.
In MA where I live, we had a great example in the 1990s:
Catholic Charities had been running the oldest and most successful adoption agency in MA, to place orphan children with foster couples.
Then along came some gay activists who demanded that Catholic Charities had to place orphan children with gay couples. CC refused, saying that this was against their religious teachings. They even offered to pay another adoption agency to place children with gay couples. No dice. A judge ruled that CC had to begin placing orphan children with gay couples.
Faced with this mandate to overturn their long-standing religious mission, CC did the only thing possible: They shut down their adoption program entirely, depriving hundreds of orphan children of a good chance to find foster parents. Gay activists howled and howled, realizing they had lost the moral high ground here.
And that's going to happen more and more, if liberals like Obama/Sibelius have their way. Either religious institutions will be bludgeoned into compliance, or else (more likely) they will get out of the charity field, leaving it to welfare-state government bureaucrats.
It would have been better if CC had stayed in busines and deliberately disobeyed the judge's order. Use the optics of the judge's jack-booted police thugs trying to break down the doors of the orphanage.
But Peter and John replied, “Do you think God wants us to obey you rather than him?" Acts 4:19
Im familiar with that case and thats not what happened. The Catholic and Mormon adoption agencies were put in a predicament where they could not continue to GET STATE FUNDS if they wanted to deny services to gay couples. The Mormons said ok, we'll forfeit the state funds and go with all private funding (probably with the help of philanthropists like Mitt Romney) and remained open. The Catholic agencies instead decided to shut down.
I recall during the overturning of the Texas sodomy law that liberals were saying, "Keep your morality out of my bedroom." Now liberals inflict their morality on the people of faith, because it's "for their own good."
