Saturday morning’s Washington Post headline and first sub-headline, page one and above-the-fold, nicely captured the confusions that prevailed as of 6 p.m. Friday, in the matter of tweaks to the “contraceptive mandate” issued by the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services: “Obama shifts on birth control / Catholic leaders open to plan.”
Well, no, and no.
The administration “shifted” on nothing. It simply decreed that insurers, not employers, must provide “preventive services” (including sterilization and abortifacient drugs), a shell game that has been variously and accurately described as a “fraud” (Andrew McCarthy, in the Corner) and an “absurdity” (the Wall Street Journal). More to the point, as Yuval Levin pointed out shortly after President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius announced their “accommodation,” the newly tweaked regulations “would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way.”
Later in the day, on the PBS News Hour, Ray Suarez confronted Secretary Sebelius with the obvious: Someone was going to pay for the contraceptives provided, and who, if not those who purchased the insurance that had to include these “preventive services?” The secretary then took the absurdity to a new level by claiming that none of this would cost anyone anything, as there was empirical evidence showing that readily available contraception lowered the overall costs to the health-care system by reducing the rate of pregnancy. All of which was, on a much graver matter, reminiscent of an old WPA poster-turned-postcard that I recently saw at the Grand Canyon, which extolled Grand Canyon National Park as “A Free Government Service.” Right.
The question on some minds as of 6 p.m. Friday night, though, was whether the Catholic bishops, who had taken the point in opposing the HHS mandate since its announcement on January 20, grasped that they had been played for fools by the administration. A rather anodyne initial reaction from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Obama/Sebelius “accommodation” had sent the blogosphere into turmoil Friday afternoon. Charges that the bishops were “caving” were soon flying all over cyberspace, charges that seemed to accept at face value the administration’s self-satisfaction over the “accommodation,” in which Obama and Sebelius had been reinforced by the likes of Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, and Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame, both of whom were quick out of the blocks to praise the administration’s moves.
But the bishops hadn’t caved, and even if they had lost the first battle of the spin-cycle, they certainly hadn’t lost the war. It’s a war they are determined to fight and win, legislatively and/or judicially, and they will do so with the solidarity of allies across the American religious spectrum.
The USCCB’s developed statement on the administration’s “accommodation” came late on Friday, about 6:30 p.m. EST, but irrespective of the timing, the statement made several things abundantly clear:
1) There was no “deal” with the administration and no “deal” was possible under the terms laid out in Friday’s “accommodation.”
2) The “accommodation” failed to address the legitimate concerns of key actors in the heath-care system, including “self-insured religious employers,” “religious and secular for-profit employers,” “secular non-profit employers,” and individuals, such that the proposed new regulations were, simply, “unacceptable.”
3) The “accommodation” continued the disturbing process of “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and threatened “government coercion of religious people and groups . . .”
4) Thus the religious freedom of institutions and men and women of conscience remained gravely imperiled by the tweaked HHS mandate and “the only solution to this . . . problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.”
Now there is the sound-bite for anyone wishing to explain the opinion of real “Catholic leaders” on the Sunday talk shows and during the coming weeks: “Don’t revise, rescind.”
This is not, in other words, a situation analogous to conscription laws, where a humane society makes provision for the pacifist’s conscientious objection to a just law. In the case of the HHS mandate, tweaked or untweaked, the law itself is unjust, and must be fought until it is undone.
This USCCB critique of the tweaked mandate was spelled out further in a letter to the entire body of American bishops signed by Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan and the four other bishops with lead responsibility for the Catholic response to HHS. The letter was originally sent Friday night to a closed website that only bishops can access, but it promptly leaked (and may well have been deliberately leaked). The letter bluntly stated that the administration’s new policy “does not meet our standard of respecting the religious liberty and moral convictions of all stakeholders in the health coverage transaction.”
Then came the commitment to pursue the war against the mandate on all fronts:
“We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate. We have grave reservations that the government is intruding in the definition of who is and who is not a religious employer . . .”
The media spin notwithstanding, this is not a matter of “shifts” on “birth control” by the administration; it’s a matter of a grotesque overreach by state power, one that threatens the entire fabric of civil society as well as the first of American liberties, religious freedom. That is why the judicial challenge to the HHS mandate will be mounted on an ecumenical and inter-religious basis, as the protest against the mandate has been. And that is why legislative attempts to reverse what Obama and Sebelius have wrought have drawn bipartisan support.
Perhaps, one day, Sister Carol Keehan and Father John Jenkins will grasp this. But the bishops have, and they’re ultimately the Catholic leaders who count. Whatever the defects in the bishops’ ability to play the spin-cycle game with dexterity, what counts here is the substance, and on the substance there is solid and durable agreement among the bishops. And that, too, counts, for it is on the substance that the war will be fought, and won.
— George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
"This is not, in other words, a situation analogous to conscription laws, where a humane society makes provision for the pacifist’s conscientious objection to a just law. In the case of the HHS mandate, tweaked or untweaked, the law itself is unjust, and must be fought until it is undone."
Indeed it isn't analogous to conscription laws. It's analogous to laws that require the pacifist to *pay* for the war while allowing him or her a conscientious exception to participation. (Other examples would include laws that require opponents of the death penalty to pay for it in their state, laws that require observant Sikhs or other vegetarians to partially subsidize the killing of animals or the provision of nonvegetarian food, etc., etc. I realize that the Catholic Church wants to increase its power and influence as much as possible, but I'm not at all sure that there's precedent to support its position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I realize that the Catholic Church wants to increase its power and influence as much as possible, but I'm not at all sure that there's precedent to support its position."
I am not a Catholic, am not planning on becoming a Catholic, don't ever want to be a Catholic. This is not about the Catholic Church wanting to increase its power and influence. It is about government wanting to grasp more power, and intrude into areas that are specifically forbidden by the constitution.
Until you are able to grasp that fact, you will never understand what this discussion is about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, there do indeed seem to be a lot more people arguing on the BEHALF of the supposedly affected group, than members of the affected group themselves. Wonder why that is?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because this is an invented controversy, with no legitimacy whatsoever - merely yet another useless volley of arrows towards Obama, who is downright loathed by the group of voters whose representatives are consistently and constantly outmaneuvered by him.
I've voted GOP for a long time, but the current bunch of leadership are idiots and the party has been captured by similar idiots, who know nothing about strategy or tactics whatsoever. And yet, the prescription is to do more of the same??? Baffling.
You already know how this contraception thing is going to turn out - they aren't going to rescind the mandate and they aren't going to widen the exemptions. And I doubt the fight will hurt Obama in the slightest. It's helping him tremendously amongst the groups of voters he desperately needs to actually come and vote: youth and women, both of whom strongly support this decision in polling.
Great job, Leadership! Maneuvered into a corner AGAIN.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"useless volley of arrows aimed at Obama." Wow, your ignorance is stunning. Word of advice: take a deep breath and take a few minutes to actually read and analyze the issue before you post idiotic comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFish,
You say that only those people in the Catholic Church that don't use contraceptives can legitimately call themselves Catholic on this issue. By extension, only folks who are sinless can legitimately call themselves Catholic. So therefore only those who don't sin should have a voice here, and everyone else, as you just wrote, "are people arguing on BEHALF of the supposedly affected group."
But rather than reject what you say outright, I'll point out that only Jesus was without sin, and so as you say, everyone else is just a bunch of people arguing on behalf of Him.
I can live with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFish,
If it's true that "there do indeed seem to be a lot more people arguing on the BEHALF of the supposedly affected group, than members of the affected group themselves", the reason is not that "this is an invented controversy" - it's that many of us non-Catholics understand that this mandate (and many others in Obamacare) violates not simply religious freedom but the general freedom of conscience as well, which was its intention. It may also be that all too many Catholics are Lefties first and Catholics second.
You're right that Obama and Sebelius won't rescind the mandate and they aren't going to widen the exemption (that would allow some small smidgen of individual freedom to survive, which is antithetical to their purpose), and you're right about the GOP leadership's poor grasp of strategy, but wrong about the reason. It's not that Obama has a winning issue here, it's that by focusing too narrowly on this one obnoxious provision out of thousands in Obamacare, and by crafting legislative tweaks that would reverse only this single provision, the GOP leaders are losing sight of the fact that the issue is the arbitrary power of the State to enforce such mandates in the first place.
A better strategy would be to explain to people that this kind of violation of the individual's conscience is part and parcel of Obamacare, which must therefore be repealed in toto. And the only way to get it repealed is to vote Republican. Now THAT's a winning argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There do indeed seem to be a lot more people arguing on the BEHALF of the supposedly affected group, than members of the affected group themselves. Wonder why that is?"
Why do you think that is true? Do you have evidence to support your assertion that Catholics are not posting, or are you simply dissembling?
"Maybe, just maybe, it's because this is an invented controversy,"
Or...maybe not. Perhaps it's a legitimate constittuional freedom of religion issue. That will be determined by the courts, not you.
"You already know how this contraception thing is going to turn out - they aren't going to rescind the mandate and they aren't going to widen the exemptions."
I don't know that at all, and I suspect that the video of Catholic bishops being arrested and jailed will be quite impactful.
"...youth and women, both of whom strongly support this decision in polling."
If they don't want freedom of religion in this country, then that's their problem. The bottom line is that the administration has other ways to "fix" this problem other than the shell game they are currently engaged in, and if they win, then this country isn't any better than the moderate totalitarian states around the world.
And you don't care. For shame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWars are funded directly by government using money appropriated through a process of political accountability. The money is raised through taxes evenly applied, duly passed.
If Obama is so sure that government should increase its power and influence (as much as possible!) into these private affairs, then let it be done through the legislative process -- get politicians on record trying to nationalize these private transactions. Make them choose, publicly -- as with an AUMF. And a tax scheme.
A better war analogy is when we nationalize private industry to create war materiel against an owners' will. Not sure we ever nationalized a church to fight an unjust war, so yeah, probably no precedent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, they are directly funded, which means that taxpayers who object are forced to directly fund something with which they disagree. I'm not sure that that's a critical difference, to be honest. As for the nationalization analogy, nobody is talking about nationalizing the Catholic Church and forcing it to hand out condoms with the Communion wafers.
AUMFs are indeed duly passed by the legislature--so, for better or worse, was Obamacare. In the case of war, that appears to legitimate certain conscience violations. Not sure why Obamacare would be different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA Catholic hospital is directed by the state to pay a sum of money to a third-party company which in turn will provide contraceptives and abortifacients to the hospital's employees.
The government COERCES this activity -- whether it's a pursuit of the public good, a declaration of war, or just an exercise of raw power it is still nationalizing some part of a private organization's resources. Just as conscription nationalizes an individual (via the power to raise an army). Please don't be mistaken about that.
Oh, and a Catholic hospital is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes. It doesn't fund your wars (or your Medicaid abortions).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, it is indeed a form of coercion; my point was just that it's a fairly well-established form--one that was hitherto uncontroversial in other situations. Conscription is not an analogous situation; no individual Catholic is being forced to dispense birth control or perform an abortion. There is generally a difference between *funding* activities and *performing* activities. I think this is somewhat specious, but the distinction is there.
And a Catholic hospital does pay some taxes (employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare), I believe. For individual Catholics, it's obviously a different matter depending on their personal financial situation.
Mostly I think we should have a consistent policy. There are essentially two possibilities: Anyone can be forced to fund activities that violate their conscience, or nobody can be. It isn't fair to say "Well, everyone else can go fly a kite, but Catholicism's different."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, a consistent policy would be nice. And would be achievable if we had a government whose authorization to act was restricted to certain carefully enumerated functions and barred from intruding in certain spheres of individual liberty.
Oh wait, we do -- there's even a law requiring that. But our current policy-makers don't agree with that law and routinely exceed their legitimate powers.
(Some on this thread would say their inability to obey their own laws prevents them from speaking with authority on any subject -- but that's an extreme argument that would make the enumerated powers of Art I sec 8 a dead letter and I won't have it.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut I will grant you this: the fact that Medicaid distributes abortion services, and taxpayers having no choice but to fund them, is indeed a huge problem. Similar, but distinct. And huge.
There was a time when even SCOTUS used its resources and its power to prop up the system of slavery. Thank heavens for the abolitionists who demanded otherwise. Today we look back and ask "what were we thinking using public money to support that evil system?" But in the day, it was business as usual. And tax money helped pave its way.
The abortion industry will look that way to some future historian: an uncomely embrace of evil. We taxpayers will be viewed as moral weaklings for not taking stronger stands. Well, those of you who take stands at all; the rest of us will be as villains.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLorraine, It's constitutionally mandated that the federal government has the responsibility to raise an army and conduct wars to defend the country (Granted, a number of the wars we've fought recently are not in defense of this country, but that isn't this current argument). The federal government does not have the constitutional mandate to force the purchase of health insurance, much less determine the type of insurance they have to buy. This is why this issue is up in front of the Supreme Court now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood try. Except that the Federal government's authority to wage war and to determine what is and what is not "cruel and unusual punishment" is a foundational authority clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and an amendment to that Constitution would be the means by which one would alter that authority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot analogous at all to paying taxes, a portion of which support warfare. That would be the case if Obamacare were a single-payer system under which contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion were covered. We would have no choices other than to pay up and to try to vote the bums out of office.
This is different. It is a mandate on PRIVATE individuals and entities to pay other private individuals and entities for something they conscientiously oppose. It is the equivalent of the Government (under a federal nutrition program) compelling an institution dedicated to organic/vegan principles to serve meat -- on grounds that many of its customers do not share the vegan principles, that meat is healthy, etc.
And the post ignores the truly Orwellian aspects of how this is being sold: 1. That since rank and file Catholics do not really follow the Church's teaching on contraception, the Bishops have no standing to make this stand on conscience. 2. That insurers will gladly provide this benefit for "free" because, after all, preventing the birth of children leads to lower health care costs in the long run. These points are front-and-center, being made in the "mainstream." Small wonder that religious leaders and institutions across the theological spectrum are standing with the Bishops on this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo wrongs do not make a right. Instead of asking others to abandon their convictions you should fight for yours. I would rather see our First Amendment rights expanded to include more concerns of conscience than eviscerated to reward those for whom religious convictions are an impediment to their agenda. This is a conscious effort of the left to remove religious convictions from the public arena as they must to ultimately prevail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey indirectly support the killing of animals the way we're already forced to support Planned Genocide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA bunch of leftists would whip up a frenzy if people tried to force Sikhs to directly pay for animal meat or give people in their religious institutions directions to the butcher.
The analogy with national defense falls down with nary a push. National defense is a public good – that is to say, it is non-rival and non-excludable. If people were allowed to opt out of paying for national defense it would create a free-rider problem because they cannot opt out of receiving the benefits of that defense which are non-excludable. The system we use for determining how much to spend on national defense and how to apply it is the best alternative available for public goods – democracy. Contraceptives are neither non-rival nor non-excludable, and as such are not public goods and so they are in no way analogous to defense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually your comparison isn't valid. It would be if employment and other taxes paid for by religous institutions went to the general fund of the US government, and then as part of its $4,000,000,000,000 budget, it funded things like abortions, birth control, and sterilizations. That is how death penalities and wars are funded.
The fed'l gov't is not forcing pacifist organizations to pay directly to have a mass murderer killed, or write out a check to a defense contractor to make bombs. But that is what they are trying to force religous institutions to do with this issue talked about this week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse