Every professed member of religious Sisters for Life take a vow “to protect and enhance the sacredness of human life.” But they cannot fully do that, according to the Obama administration.
In a statement, the Sisters explain what the HHS mandate means for them:
This new rule pays no heed to our right to live according to our vows. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act each of us will be required by law to obtain health insurance, or face fines. Since this HHS mandate will require every insurer to include abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and artificial contraception, we will not be able to obtain any coverage that is free from those “services,” and we will be forced to pay for them directly. Since we are neither employers, nor employees, of any religious institution, we cannot even take advantage of the “religious exemption” contained in the new regulations or the “compromise.”
As a result, this mandate would coerce each and every individual Sister of Life to betray her religious vows. We will be forced to pay for “services” that attack human life and deny the truth and beauty of human sexuality. This would directly contradict our special religious vow to “to protect and enhance the sacredness of human life,” and go against everything we believe in and have devoted our lives to. To us, it would be comparable to a law requiring a spouse to violate their marriage vows — an unthinkable intrusion upon a sacred promise.
This mandate is an offensive and dangerous infringement upon the natural and Constitutional rights of American citizens. The only just solution to this infringement of rights is to rescind the HHS rule. We call upon members of Congress and the Executive Branch to reverse this decision as soon as possible, and we invite our fellow citizens to join with us in prayer and fasting that our Nation may be protected from this great threat against liberty.
Read it all here.
At the House oversight hearing today there was a convent-would-be-ok exchange. Not quite. As Ed Mechmann, assistant director of the Family Life/Respect Life Office at the Archdiocese of New York explains:
In the eyes of the health care law, there are only three entities that matter — an individual, an employer, and an insurance company. The religious community is not in any sense the employer of the Sisters. To the health care law, the order is just a voluntary association, like a bowling league — it has no relevance whatsoever.
So, in dealing with the effects of the law, the Sisters are just plain individuals — subject to the individual mandate, not able to take advantage of the employer exemption (such as it is), and required to get a health insurance policy (all of which will be required to have contraception coverage).
So the Sisters of Life, consecrated to the task of building a culture of life, would have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Seriously, Mr. President? Seriously, Secretary Sebelius? Seriously, Joe Biden? Seriously, Nancy Pelosi?
Why would an employee's use of salary dollars to purchase contraceptives be any less "direct"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause once the money is paid, it becomes the responsibility of the employee to use it in a moral fashion. While the money is in the hands of the employer, it is their responsibility to use it in such a fashion. For the Sisters to purchase the services of a killer-for-hire (such as an insurance company paying for abortions) is their sin; for the employee to do the same makes it the employee's responsibility.
The Sisters (and many, many more) are conscientious objectors to murder by abortion. The State has no *right* to compel them to provide that murder, even if it might possess the *power* to compel them--for the time being, anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut no payment is made unless the employee decides to purchase contraceptives (with salary dollars!) and submit a claim to the insurance carrier. The Sisters are no more directly involved, either way.
And since the Sisters object to purchasing the services of killers-for-hire -- how do they prevent the use of taxes and fees paid the Federal Government for military purposes? How conscientious has their objection been?
This is political theater, nothing less -- certainly, nothing high-minded and focused on morality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, since people have been compelled to do things against their consciences before, then it is OK to continue trampling upon them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey would be pooling their money with others to provide this service.
As opposed to working for someone who pools that persons funds with others for that purpose. This is one step more removed.
It can be hard to act morally in a world where government forces you to pay taxes and tries to do everything for everyone. Often it is a matter of degrees. It would be much easier if the Feds where not so entangled in our everyday lives and active militarily.
But that is part of the reason it is so important to resist EVERY expansion of government into our lives.
I think many well meaning church goers missed this point when supporting the idea of universal healthcare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is more than a matter of "conscience". Being part of the RCC demands it. The prohibitions against abortion goes back 20 centuries. There are certain tenets of the Faith that are put beyond debate - abortion and artificial contraception are two of them. Matters of war and peace are not. Abortion and contraception are not only considered Mortal Sins but they are also defined as instrinctsically evil. And the Church wishes for the prohhibition to be extended to all Catholics who purchase health insurance - not just Church affiliated organzations.
To demand otherwise is to make the Church cooperate in the sins of others (ie leading its sheep straight to Hell) . That, by definition is tyranny. The entire ObamaCare enterprise is nothing but federally funded oppression.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJPK writes: "The prohibitions against abortion [in the RCC] goes back 20 centuries"
Is that a true statement? Where's the proof of that? This type of hyperbole undermines your position, it doesn't enhance it. Another example: "The entire Obamacare enterprise is nothing but federally funded oppression."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut what gives the Roman Catholic Church's definition of "sin" peculiar value or force? Do all of us have the right to refuse to comply with civil mandates that offend us? Conversely, doesn't enshrining the moral code of a particular religion amount to the "establishment of religion" against which there are very specific Constitutional guarantees?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is called the First Amendment, Andy. Maybe you should read it sometime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're exactly right. It IS called the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is extremely clear in its intent that no single religion (or even a group of religions) should be allowed to force their spiritual beliefs on others through legislation or other government action. Perhaps YOU should read it, Kyle. Andy seems to have a good grasp of it already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut that's the complete inverse of what's happening! How are the Sisters of Life or any religious organisation 'imposing their religious beliefs' on other people? by refusing to pay for abortions and contraception, services which are so readily available in the US that's it's not funny?
In fact, what's happening is the state is intruding on the private lives of its citizens, violating the other side of the separation-of-church-and-state coin which you propound in your initial comment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndy... that certainly seems clear to me. I'm not sure why other folks have such a hard time seeing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause it is then the individual making that choice not the government through the mandate. It's called individual liberty given to us by our Creator. If it needs further explanation then you are part of the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAttacking the individual does nothing to advance your argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently, nobody told these ladies that having these services on the plate does not require them to partake of them. By definition, insurance makes one pay for an enormous range of potential treatments that one does not use and may not agree with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's called capitation. Many participants pay for insurance that pays for a set of services. Previously, insurance companies were allowed to craft policies that respected the religious convictions of organizations, but the one-size-fits-all approach of PPACA does away with that. We will soon fondly remember our "cafeteria" style insurance options.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is absolutely true. For example, my moral, ethical, philosophical and spiritual beliefs include objection to most immunizations. My insurance company pays for them for anyone who chooses to get them, and I don't get any break on my premiums just because my family does not choose to be immunized. I haven't asked if there is a waiver for those vaccines to which I object, but I seriously doubt there is any accommodation for that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand the religious liberty angle.
But I also can imagine this administration making yet another "waiver" case for some rule that applies to the rest of the world.
It seems like this waiver thing has really come into the forefront since No Child Left Behind. Isn't a waiver just another way of making a law which applies only to certain people? Isn't there something hidden away in the Constitution about making laws that only apply to selected people (those without the wherewithal to get a waiver)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre these Sisters part of the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, that 98% figure includes only women between the ages of 15 - 44 who are sexually active and not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
(Funny how they forget the fine print when they wave the figure around. You'd think it was 98% of ALL Catholic women, when in fact it's nothing anywhere close to that.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse