From Speaker of the House John Boehner’s press briefing this morning:
Q: Mr. Speaker, I know just outside your district there are a number of religious affiliated hospitals that are prominent. The Christ Hospital, Jewish Hospital, Good Samaritan. With this debate over contraception, do you think these hospitals that receive Federal money should have to give up their church doctrine to adhere to that or should it be the other way around?
Speaker Boehner: There is obviously a lot of opposition to the announcement by the. Secretary of Health and Human Services, to requiring religious organizations to violate their beliefs in ordering that all insurance policies provide certain contraceptive benefits. I think this mandate violates our Constitution. I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations, and I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this.
Religious organizations do not have to violate their beliefs. They are under no compulsion to take Federal money in the first place, so they do in fact have a choice here. If you want Federal dollars however, you do have to abide by the rules the Federal government sets.
The claim that this is unconstitutional is bogus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth the reporter who asked the original question and you are wrong on the facts. This has ZERO to do with accepting federal funds or not. This is a requirement of EMPLOYING people who are not of your faith or of SERVING people who are not of your faith.
These hospitals could reject every government penny and they would still have to abide by the rule promulgated last week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInterested Observer,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're mistaken. The rule covers all employers regardless of whether they take federal money or not. If you don't take federal dollars, you still have to comply with the rule.
IO, you are mixing two issues. First, the Federal requirement that medical facilities receiving Federal dollars must provide abortions, contraception, etc. your sentiment is valid, but it is not applied to other providers. To take a hot example, Planned Parenthood receives Federal money to provide cancer sccreenings, but largely does not provide them; they refer patients to other providers that perform mammograms. Neither is PP being required by the Federal government to provide adoption services, or sonograms to mothers prior to providing abortions. If it is not applied, to all it is poor policy. It also would seem to violate the President's State of the Union plea for fairness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the second part, HHS is requiring employers to provide abortion and contraception services on their health coverage or pay a heafty penalty. Thus, a Catholic church, school, or hospital would be violating their religiously held objection to taking unborn life. Compelling a believer to behave in a certain way against their faith, arguably violates the free exercise clause. Suppose the HHS finds bacon to be a key nutrient; extrapolating your view to that issue, a Jewish hospital must serve bacon.
Because the HHS Secretary was given such sweeping power under the Affordable Care Act, the churches in question probably have a legitimate case for overturning the law because it violates their First Amendment right to free exercise, and the ACA gives them no other redress. Perhaps if SCOTUS upholds ACA or only strikes down the individual mandate, you will see a second round of cases.
The Speaker of the House hopes the president takes another look?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not just dissolve the House? It appears to be powerless.
"There is obviously a lot of opposition to the announcement by the. Secretary of Health and Human Services, to requiring religious organizations to violate their beliefs "
There is obviously a lot of opposition by the religious elites. It seems that the vast majority (>90%) of sexually-active Catholics do not share this opposition to contraception.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this." Boy, you think you should tone down your rhetoric, Mr. Speaker?
If you want to know why Obama is still riding so high in the polls, look at the inability of the pro-life Catholic Republican Speaker of the House to express any genuine outrage over even this evil regulation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark, your >90% figure may be slightly skewed. Around 2% of Catholic women/couples use NFP(natural family planning; it's not the rhythm method, but it does involve natural signs from a woman's body; it also doesn't involve artificial hormones or barriers). The assumption made by some is that EVERY other Catholic woman/couple must be using artificial contraception; on the contrary, many are simply do not use contraceptives, artificial or natural
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse