The Obama administration and its allies continue to defend a regulation mandating that Catholics offer and purchase health-insurance plans that violate their consciences. The administration is counting on confusion to keep this from becoming a permanent political wound. But Obama voters — including prominent ones — see this not as an issue about birth control or even abortion (an issue they’ve overlooked in Obama’s case before), but as an issue of religious liberty and the nature of our nation.
Mark Rienzi walks through some of the most frequently asked questions with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez. Rienzi is senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a professor of constitutional law at the Catholic University of America (Lopez’s alma mater).
Advertisement
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: So what exactly is the problem with the HHS mandate?
MARK RIENZI: The mandate forces individuals and organizations to violate their religious principles by providing their employees with drugs that cause abortion, as well as with contraception and sterilization. Whatever one thinks about the debate between “choice” and “life,” we should all be able to agree that only willing people should have to participate in abortions.
This country was founded by people of all different faiths and backgrounds. We have a great tradition of finding ways to work with people so as not to force them to violate their religious beliefs. The Obama administration’s refusal to do that here violates the Constitution and federal law.
LOPEZ: Is there a smart shorthand that captures that?
RIENZI: Sure: Tyranny.
LOPEZ: But there is an exemption in the mandate. Why is that not enough?
RIENZI: The existing exemption is incredibly narrow and actually penalizes those charitable organizations that are kind enough to help people who are not members of their own faith. A Catholic soup kitchen, for example, would fail to qualify simply because they serve hungry Jews, atheists, and Muslims along with hungry Catholics. The same would be true for inner-city Catholic schools, which frequently educate poor children of all faiths. On top of that, the exception would apply only to organizations that refuse to hire members of other religions and that file tax returns as churches or religious orders. The conscience clause also applies only to organizations and not to individual business owners who may not want to pay for these services. It is, by far, the narrowest conscience clause in federal or state law.
LOPEZ: Is this a “war on religion”? Has Kathleen Sebelius even suggested as much?
RIENZI: Well, at the very least, it is a clear rejection of our long historical tradition of respecting individual religious freedom in this country. With this mandate and the incredibly narrow conscience clause, President Obama treats religious liberty as something that belongs to religious organizations alone, and even then only to religious organizations that behave the way he wants them to (i.e., refusing to serve and hire members of other faiths). He completely ignores (or worse, deliberately violates) the religious-freedom rights of many other religious organizations, and of many religious individuals who do not want to pay for these services.
Secretary Sebelius did say she was at war over contraceptives and abortion. I have no idea if this is what she had in mind. But whether they wanted it or not, she and the president have now provoked a powerful, cross-party, multi-faith resistance that is not about to give up its religious freedom without a fight. Who says this president can’t bring people together?
Is the goal free access to contraception, or is the goal to have religious employers pay for employees' access to birth control? What is preventing Planned Parenthood from creating a dedicated fund to which people can contribute, that would cover the cost of birth control for all employees whose health insurance doesn't cover birth control? Then Planned Parenthood staff and volunteers can, among other marketing strategies, stand on sidewalks outside of Catholic hospitals, universities and charities and advertise their services. Certainly this would solve the issue of funding, access and awareness of resources, and Planned Parenthood would likely gain some new supporters in the process. Surely, as job openings occur elsewhere, Catholic institution employees can switch employers to those that cover these services, if they so desire. This just seems like a golden opportunity for Planned Parenthood to again demonstrate their compassion and commitment to choice!
This is not even a religious matter, its purely fiscal. In this country you have the freedom to believe anything you see fit. You don't, however, have a carte blanch to fun a hospital or university. Those institutions have rules as to how they can operate and still be certified and accredited. If you don't want to follow those rules, give up your school or university. I certainly don't want a Jehovah's Witness hospital to refuse me life saving blood due to their beliefs, and when I am dying on the floor from a heart attack, i certainly don't want to have to research which hospitals are "real" hospitals and which ones are religious "fake" hospitals without accreditation. On top of that, this gives a serious business advantage for "catholic" businesses, as they can lower expenses on heath care vs. their non-catholic counterparts. Its crony capitalism at its finest. What happened to equal protection under the law, and not giving special treatment to some groups vs others? How can you be against affirmative action and for this?
Ha ha, you never fretted about the multitude of Jehovah Witness hospitals in your health plan's network before today, Worldwideimp. Maybe you should change plans. I see a business opportunity there for you; start the Worldwideimp Atheist Health Plan. (Good luck at finding a hospital started by the generous charitable contributions of atheists, though.)
All your attempts at arguments there are are as phony as an Obama promise.
"This is not even a religious matter, its purely fiscal." Well, actually you are wrong. But making another fiscal observation - 25% of all the hospitals in the US are operated by the Catholic Church. If they close down - who will pay for their replacement? 10% of all US schoolchildren are enrolled in parochial schools. If they close their doors who will pay for the increased public school cost? There are thousands of church run charities operating everything from homeless shelters and soup kitchens to adoption agencies and legal aid societies. If they all close down because your government has made it impossible for them to operate according to the dictates of their conscience are YOU going to pay the cost for their replacement?
This is not even a religious matter, its purely fiscal. In this country you have the freedom to believe anything you see fit. You don't, however, have a carte blanch to fun a hospital or university. Those institutions have rules as to how they can operate and still be certified and accredited. If you don't want to follow those rules, give up your school or university. I certainly don't want a Jehovah's Witness hospital to refuse me life saving blood due to their beliefs, and when I am dying on the floor from a heart attack, i certainly don't want to have to research which hospitals are "real" hospitals and which ones are religious "fake" hospitals without accreditation. On top of that, this gives a serious business advantage for "catholic" businesses, as they can lower expenses on heath care vs. their non-catholic counterparts. Its crony capitalism at its finest. What happened to equal protection under the law, and not giving special treatment to some groups vs others? How can you be against affirmative action and for this?
This is exactly correct. Why should the insurance premiums paid on my behalf (either directly or as part of an employment compensation package) go to fund a proceedure that I think is killing another person? It shouldn't just be employers who can get an exemption, but anyone opposed to abortion as the murder of a unique person.
For that matter, why shouldn't I be allowed to take home more cash in return for agreeing to fund more of my own health care through the mechanism of choosing bare bones coverage.
Why discriminate against those who don't want coverage?
"Those institutions have rules as to how they can operate and still be certified and accredited."
So, you would have the accreditation and certification of Catholic hospitals in the US (28 out of the top 100 hospitals in the nation are operated by the Catholic Church, including the #1 hospital in the nation) based NOT on how they take care of their patients, but rather on whether or not they provide contraceptives and abortion services to employees as part of their benefit package?
And you wonder why most Conservatives consider progressivism to be a mental disorder?
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that Hospitals don't make money? And that they don't provide services that are in high demand? If those hospitals close, the free market will replace them overnight with private hospitals, which DO follow hiring rules and aren't asking for a protected market.
I'm not sure what your point is. Every single Catholic hospital is accredited. And Catholic univsersities are some of the finest in the world. And what compels the Church to offer these services (care for the poor and eldery, education for all) is the same thing that compels them to prohibit contraception and abortions. It has nothing to do with capialism. Most Catholic hospitals depend upon private donations to make up for lost money via Medicare and Medicaid. And no Catholic universities have the endowments the size of Yale's or Harvad's. There is nothing fake about a Catholic hospital or university.
And you totally ignore the point that abortions and contraceptives do not save lives. If anything, they are therapuetic. And a hospital or university's accrediation is not dependent upon whether it offers abortions, sterilizations or contraceptives. If I take your point correctly, you would rather see a Catholic hospital (which serves the poor and elderly) close down rather than not offer these horrible (and unneeded) services.
The problem with any insurance mandate is it is bound to offend someone's morals. There are over two thousand state-issued mandates on insurers already, requiring coverage for all manner of ailments or conditions that may be of dubious medical necessity but are politically easy to mandate to please an interest group. I don't agree that insurance should , for example, cover the cost of a sex-change operation but many insurers do. In our present state-run insurance system, these state mandates effectively leave the premium-paying citizen little choice since one cannot buy a policy from another state that may not require its insured's to pay for procedures one may not agree with.
I'm afraid we will see much, much more of this type of conflict as the Federal government slowly takes over the health care "insurance" system.
Just because many Catholic women and men violate Church teaching, doesn't mean the government can force the Church to violate its own teaching ! I am sick and tired of hearing that argument from Obama supporters in favor of the unconstitutional HHS mandate.
Unless Obamacare is repealed, the latest mandate from HHS is likely to be among the first of thousands over the waining years of the republic we knew. The mandate is a political miscalc by the Obama crew and it will be set aside or rescinded before the November 2012 election. But the problem will not be eradicated. This mandate and others like it will arise when they are politically more tenable.
The legitimacy of a government burueau (that is effectively out of reach of the governed)issuing whimsical decrees is the real issue here and the latest mandate is virtually irrelevant, if it can be resurrected at some later, more convenient time. An unelected body that can pronounce capricious edicts concerning what a private employer or individual must purchase undermines a predictable rule of law which gives liberty any meaning,
I would hope that Mr. Rienzi and those of any faith-based group might now ardently voice the need to and actively join the campaign for repeal of Obamacare. The act gives too much power to the Executive, is financially untenable (it will destroy charity) and undermines a system of predictable legal outcomes needed to guarantee liberty. I would ask that Ms. Lopez and other eloquent writers in the National Review circle elevate the latest mandate to a debate on the illegitimacy of the whole debacle before us in Obamacare.
Imagine for a brief second if this mandate were seen as requiring a Muslim institution to do something against its religious beliefs? Yeah, that's I thought.
So, Worldwideimp, if I find you on the floor dying of a heart attack, should I withhold CPR until an "accredited" provider comes available?
Neither birth control nor abortion are emergency services.
At the bottom, hospitals are simply groups of people trying to help. While government does have a role in ensuring that the "help" is not injurious, it is ultimately not the provider of care.
Enlightened people have always tried to help their neighbors in need. They will continue to do so regardless of and sometimes in spite of government interference.
Abortion can be life saving in the case of ectopic pregnancy. That's hardly the point. Having people who work for Catholic organizations use public means to procure their birth control is a de-facto subsidy to the Catholic Church. And I have a problem with that. Not only must I contribute to the contraceptives of the people I work with in my health care plan, the Catholics propose that i should now also have to subsidize their religious convictions. Like i said. You want to run a hospital? Follow the rules.
Of course, the whole debate is exactly about "the rules" and whether or not said "rules" are just. I think we can all probably agree that one needn't always assent to the "rules" simply and merely because they are "rules". It should go without saying that there can be, and often are, unjust "rules".
I am actually baffled that the government is in the business of distributing contraceptives in the first place. Though I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. I have to wonder if there is much of anything anymore that we as "adult" human beings are expected to provide for ourselves. Regardless of the current controversy I have to ask exactly why are subsidizing what should be purely an individual's responsibility?
Lastly, your point about a Jehovah's Witness hospital objecting to providing blood transfusions--I am assuming this is a largely hypothetical scenario--is not without merit. I don't have a ready answer to this so I will have to ponder that one a bit more. Thank you for that.
