Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska is no newcomer to this fight for conscience rights — he authored the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (which is the Blunt bill in the Senate) last spring. He responds to the president today:
The President still doesn’t understand that religious institutions will still be unacceptably entangled–financially and provisionally– with drugs, procedures, and services to which they may have religious and moral objections, in violation of their long-held rights of conscience. Moreover, this announcement still does not get to the very core of American distress: religious freedom and conscience rights are natural rights as enshrined in the Constitution. The government does not confer them and must not force persons to violate them by paying for things to which they have reasoned religious or moral objections.
Congress should protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strongarm of government to pay for services to which she or he has deeply-held objections. We must do so for the benefit of the millions of Americans who are calling for swift bipartisan action.”
Fortenberry introduced H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, in March 2011. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.
Currently, the bill has a bipartisan 180 cosponsors. In the Senate, Senator Roy Blunt is advancing this same legislation, with nearly 40 cosponsors.
H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations. Numerous other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.
If he is your congressman, you might thank him for his leadership on this; if your congressman is not a co-sponsor, you might mention the bill to him.
Forte rocks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs all the "religious-liberty" sanctimony flies in the wake of the "HHS mandate," the deception, hypocrisy, and lack of transparency on the part of the American Catholic bishops on the substantive matter of their past contraception-facilitating actions cannot be overemphasized. (But, of course, no body really cares about that embarrassing substantive matter; certainly not American Catholics, who are as pro-contraception as their non-Catholic American brothers and sisters. But...ignore that man behind the curtain; let's keep our eyes on "religious liberty.") Examples like the following could be endlessly multiplied:
The following is from the Catholic Relief Services-United States Catholic Conference “post report” for the country of Haiti, intended for the use of Catholic Relief Services employees assigned to that country. Most female employees were single. (Year in question: 2000.)
The casual, matter-of-fact, taken-for-granted, absolutely amoral manner in which contraception use by CRS employees is noted is rather striking….or maybe not:
"It is advisable to bring to post any medications and over-the-counter drugs used regularly and to make arrangements with a U.S. pharmacy for refills. Pharmacies are available in Port-au-Prince but often stock only European pharmaceutical (sic). Contraceptives are available—but not all kinds. It is preferable to bring your own."
I don’t remember if the health-insurance plan offered by CRS-USCC for overseas employees reimbursed for contraception purchases. But it would not have been surprising. CRS-USCC generally justified such things – though they generally never had to: see "lack of transparency" – by arguments from: (a) gender equality – not offering contraception would be discriminatory to women, and/or (b) presence in large numbers of non-Catholics on its staff – would be unfair to them not to offer contraception, and/or (c) U.S. Government contractual requirements – U.S. Government could “require” that all of its contractors (including CRS) offer particular specified benefits to its employees and that the contractor did not “discriminate” against women and minorities.
In any case, that section from the post report demonstrates rather clearly where the bishops -- and almost all American Catholics -- stood (and probably still stand) on the underlying moral question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The President still doesn’t understand that religious institutions will still be unacceptably entangled"
Yes he does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse