Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard (and former ambassador to the Holy See), John Garvey, president of Catholic University, and Robert P. George of Princeton, and Carter Snead, among others, are with Yuval, too:
Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.
This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.
It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.
It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.
The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.
Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.
Signed:
John Garvey
President, The Catholic University of America
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
O. Carter Snead
Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Yuval Levin
Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
_______________________________________________
Jean Bethke Elshtain
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics in the Divinity School, Department of Political Science and the Committee on International Relations, The University of Chicago
Tom Farr
Director of Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Georgetown University
Richard W. Garnett
Associate Dean and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Patrick MacKinley Brennan
John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies and Professor of Law, Villanova University
Gerard V. Bradley
Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Paolo Carozza
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Civil and Human Rights, University of Notre Dame
George Weigel
Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Gilbert Meilaender
Duesenberg Professor in Christian Ethics, Valparaiso University
President Timothy O’Donnell
ChristendomCollege
Dr. William K. Thierfelder
President, Belmont Abbey College
Steven Smith
Class of 1975 Endowed Professor of Law, San Diego University
Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley
Professor of Law and Director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program, Fordham University
Michael Stokes Paulsen
Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law The University of St. Thomas
Prof. Alan Mittleman
Professor of Modern Jewish Thought
The Jewish Theological Seminary
Rabie Meir Y. Soloveichik
Director, Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought, Yeshiva University
Micah J. Watson
Director, Center for Politics and Religion and Assistant Professor of Political Science, Union University
Helen Alvare
Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University
Michael Moreland,
Associate Professor of Law, Villanova University
V. Bradley Lewis
Associate Professor of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America
Matthew J. Franck
Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution, the Witherspoon Institute
Kristina Arriaga
Executive Director, The Becket Fund
Christopher Tollefsen
Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina
Rusty Reno
Editor, First Things
Ryan Anderson
Editor, Public Discourse
Patrick Lee
Professor of Philosophy, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Francis J. Beckwith
Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University
William Imboden
Assistant Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas
Patrick Fagan
Senior Fellow and Director, Marriage & Religion Research Institute
Gerald R. McDermott
Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion, Roanoke Collegee
Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
Ramesh Ponnuru
Senior Editor, National Review
Donna Bethell
Chairman of the Board, Christendom College
Father Jonathan Morris
Author, Televison Analyst
Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral, NYC
Father Terence Henry
TOR President of Franciscan University of Steubenville
Marianne Evans Mount
President, Catholic Distance University
Robert D. Benne
Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College
William Edmund Fahey
President, The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (NH)
Michael Novak
George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy, American Enterprise Institute
Bernard F. O’Connor
President, DeSales Unviersity
Thomas S. Kidd
Associate Professor of History and Senior Fellow, Institute of Religion, Baylor University
Joseph Knippenberg
Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University
Maggie Gallagher
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Robert C. Odle, Jr.
Partner, Weil Gotshal and Manges
Nancy Matthews
I think it should become increasingly obvious that this might be a standard Chicago or Illinois-style political tactic--the powers that be are supposed to give the objecting party a fig leaf of cover that can fool the masses, and the objecting party is supposed to take it. Lest power grow annoyed.
If I am correct in my supposition--that Obama's team are merely relying on time-proven methods from their past--then I think at some point it becomes a reasonable question to ask if the voters of the city of Chicago proper or Illinois as a mass are actually as stupid and easily misled/steered as the use of such tactics woud make them seem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would not the religious employees simply not avail themselves of such service? Simply having them AVAILABLE, violates the church''s conscience?
It violates their ability to control the personal life of their employees. Don't they trust their own employees not to partake of evil contraception?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting letter. A few thoughts ...
"This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy."
The majority of our states already have this particular mandate in place, and within those states the Catholic Institutions have complied with very little drama. Whatever it is that indeed "gave rise to the controversy" today, it is demonstrably NOT due to any substantive change in a mandate that has already been widely implemented and complied with by religious institutions nationwide.
___________________________________________
"The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust."
It is positively propagandic that this "uproar" is being characterized as "bipartisan". Out of 175-ish cosponsors, only a handful of Dems have cosponsored HR 1179, and last I checked there were no Dem Senators among the 40 who are cosponsoring the Senate's version. Further, there is nothing remotely bipartisan about any of the activism surrounding either side of this issue, unless you wish to count the GOPers who have advised that this is an altogether losing tack for the GOP to take. (Holy understatement.) External Link
_______________________________________________
"[Any mandate for contraceptive coverage] is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience ..."
Not so, according to the many religious leaders who've signed on to the Joint Statement below -- among them Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims -- and not according to the majority of our nation's people of faith and conscience. Y'all have seen the polls, right?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOops, I forgot to include ...
"The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment."
Yeah, about that. Justice Scalia, of all people, has already deflated that argument: “[T]here is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeez, it would be just terrific if EVERYONE stopped saying that Obama and his minions don't "understand" what they are doing here. They know absolutely, unconditionally and unrepentantly exactly what they are doing here. Further, they know absolutely, unconditionally and unrepentantly the true meaning, nature and scope of the Ist Amendment protections and the fact that they are eviscerating them.
Oh, they have done stupid, demented and ridiculous things, many of them. But, not this time. When their authoritarian impulses intersect the Constitution they invariably elevate the former, no matter the adverse consequences to the latter. It is in their DNA. It is deliberate. It is planned. It after all reflects their abiding belief in the primacy of men and the importance of lies in the pursuit of a greater truth. How else is one to create heaven on earth?
The first step in successfully vanquishing such an enemy is to avoid demonstrating to that enemy weakness and irresolution. Public statements that avoid the candor which compels the unavoidable conclusion that these are fundamental, irreconcilable differences, lead inevitably to the view that these are but mere misunderstandings. This in turn leads one to take the great risk of deluding oneself into thinking that if it were just explained in full, then the enemy would come around and agree.
Never. Going. To. Happen. Why? Because they are doing precisely what they want to do. Consequences be damned. They are transforming the country, and no mere, ancient parchment no matter how venerated is going to be allowed to get in their way. If they get away with this, only worse things will happen in the future.
This is the hill we need to be prepared to die on. And, if that is our choice, and I pray that it is, then we can skip the polite, diplomatic posturing that implies we and our enemy are both reasonable and rational and can reach accord in a calm, reflective manner.
This is a war, and we cannot prevail if we fudge the truth and thereby make it the first casualty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStu
Thank each of you for authoring this letter and putting your names to it. If you'd like more names, publish it so we can all sign! Christians of all stripes need to stand together against this federal government intrusion on individual freedom and conscience. God bless!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse