WASHINGTON — With the Aug. 1, 2013, deadline for compliance with the contraception mandate looming ahead, U.S. legislators are scrambling to secure conscience protections for employers who oppose the law on moral or religious grounds.
While Church-affiliated institutions have been promised a one-year extension before they must document their compliance, private for-profit businesses must provide that proof as soon as their new health plan is rolled out.
With time running out, Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Service and Education, introduced beefed-up conscience protections in his subcommittee’s 2013 appropriations bill that funds the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Richard Doerflinger, the chief lobbyist on life issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, described the House Subcommittee appropriations bill as a “breakthrough” because the language from the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is included right in the spending bill and not in an amendment.
“I think we have an excellent chance of keeping the conscience language in the House bill. The real challenge will be for the Senate to accept it. But the Senate cannot simply filibuster the appropriations bill if they want HHS funded for the upcoming year. One way or the other, there will be a vote,” he told the Register, while expressing some uncertainty about the timeline.
It will likely be a tough sell in the Senate, where an amendment with conscience provisions recently failed to gain approval in a close vote. But Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities, applauded the decision to insert two key conscience provisions in the House spending bill.
In a July 17 letter that urged adoption of the provisions, Cardinal DiNardo said they would “strengthen federal protections for health-care providers who decline to take part in abortions and will ensure that the Affordable Care Act allows Americans to purchase health coverage without being forced to abandon their deeply held religious and moral convictions on matters such as abortion and sterilization.”
Approved on July 18 by the subcommittee, the bill incorporates the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA, H.R. 362) and the policy of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).
The ANDA provisions would codify the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which bars government discrimination against health-care providers that refuse to participate in abortion. That protection was more vital than ever, the cardinal argued, as instances “of discrimination against pro-life health-care providers continue to emerge.”
He reported that “some states implementing the Affordable Care Act have begun to claim that they can force all private health plans on their exchanges to cover elective abortion as an ‘essential health benefit.’”
ANDA would help address that threat, he stressed: “By closing loopholes and providing victims of discrimination with a ‘private right of action’ to defend their rights in court, Section 538 will provide urgently needed relief.”
‘The Most Direct Threat’
While adoption of ANDA provisions would address the broader threat to the rights of conscience, the insertion of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act would counter “the most direct federal threat to religious freedom in recent memory,” he said, alluding to the HHS mandate for all private health plans.
The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, he said, would provide “an opt out on moral or religious grounds from the new-benefits mandates to be created for the first time by the Affordable Care Act itself.”
The intense deliberations underscore the urgency — and difficulty — of securing legislation that will meet the needs of both institutions and individuals who object to the federal contraception mandate on religious or moral grounds.
Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said Rehberg’s move this week “showed real grit, because Rehberg is seeking a Senate seat this fall, and today’s action will surely draw attacks from the well-funded pro-abortion advocacy groups who are supporting U.S. Senator Jon Tester. Tester has a solidly pro-abortion record and has already voted to defend the Obama mandate.”
When Rehberg issued his statement introducing the spending bill, he sought to head off partisan objections, noting that that the “preventive-services conscience language in the base bill does not overturn the preventive-services mandate. It simply accommodates faith-based institutions and other entities that have moral or religious objections to covering certain services that have been newly mandated under Obamacare.”
The federal rule mandating co-pay-free coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs in employee health plans was approved by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Jan. 20. After a wave of criticism from Catholic leaders across the political spectrum, President Barack Obama announced an “accommodation” that directed objecting religious institutions to pass on compliance obligations to insurance companies.
Rehberg asserted that the “administration’s latest ‘advanced notice of proposed rulemaking’ has been rejected by the faith-based groups most likely to be impacted by the mandate. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Health Association, Southern Baptist leaders and the Orthodox Jews have rejected the so-called accommodation.”
A week earlier, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., introduced his own bill that did not attempt to overturn the mandate; it focused instead on repealing the “tax” that would be imposed on employers that resisted the mandate. The USCCB was initially enthusiastic about the measure, but ultimately decided that it would not provide relief for Church-affiliated institutions.
“The Obama administration now says the way it will enforce this mandate with respect to religious employers is that they will not penalize them for non-compliance,” the USCCB's Doerflinger said.
Instead, when Catholic institutions “try to put out a Catholic health plan, the government will have the insurance company or a third party insert the contraception coverage over the religious institutions' objections,” he noted.
That kind of "solution," however, could set a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into internal church operations. Further, even if some objecting institutions are spared the government "tax," most private employers who resist the mandate will have to pay penalties, and they also could face employee lawsuits demanding access to co-pay free "preventive services."
The bishops’ conference is clearly enthusiastic about Rehberg’s solution. In his letter to the House subcommittee, Cardinal DiNardo vowed that “the Catholic community and many others concerned about religious freedom will work hard to ensure that these protections are enacted into law.”
However, that pledge must be bolstered with intense follow-up action, as lawmakers on Capitol Hill seeking re-election weigh expending political capital on an unpredictable religious-freedom battle during an election year.
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Comments
Post a Comment
He reported that “some states implementing the Affordable Care Act have begun to claim that they can force all private health plans on their exchanges to cover elective abortion as an ‘essential health benefit.’”
-
*Cough cough CONNECTICUT cough cough cough*
Is the deadline Aug 1 2013 or 2012?
This administration has a track record of doing what is politically expedient and reversing course by executive fiat. They Can NOT be trusted! It is imperative that the entire bill be scraped. We need to start over!
This HHS mandate is in violation of the 1st amendment, in that it is a congressional establishment of religion:
On every medical institution/establishment, there is prominently displayed the staff of Aesculapius just like a cross on a church, or a spire with a crescent moon on a mosque. This god of medicine, Aesculapius had temples of “healing” long before Constantine became a Christian and tore them down.
Obama and every congressman/woman can go and bow to these Priestly Hierarchy Document holders(PHD’s), at their temples of Aesculapius, and rename this worship of an “art(art of medicine) as “science” to give it, “credibility”, regardless of the facts, because they, as little gods unto themselves think they can usurp God’s jurisdiction with a vote, is “wishful childish thinking at best”, and unconstitutional in it’s entirety, NOT JUST IN IT’S PELVIC ISSUES.
With all due respect, unless “Health insurance” can actually restore, or replace health, it is fraud on it’s face, and if it requires entering a temple of Aesculapius to file a claim, it is religious in nature.
Let it be known O Nebuchadnezzer(Obama and every congressman/woman that voted on this bill they had not even read)... we are not careful to answer thee in this matter….....be it known unto thee O king we will not serve(pay) thy gods(too big to fail, but would without welfare), or bow to the staff of Aesculapius thou hast set up.
In Germany, the government collects taxes from citizens claiming a religious affliations and then distributes the funds to churches etc..
This has caused a dramatic increase in the number of people declaring themselves to be atheist. Hence avoid paying a tax.
What you promote is the exact opposite but the effect will be similiar. People who declare themselves to be christian to avoid a tax.
Both cases carry the same consequences, a degradation of religious values.
You cannot see beyond your noses. You have only yourselves to blame.
Pesqueira,
You have a point, but at the peril of seeming to be repetitious, it is you that cannot see beyond your nose. You see, it’s easy to criticize but much harder to come up with a solution that protects Freedom of Religion under these stressful circumstances. Unless you can come up with a better plan. You have one? Let’s hear it.
Pesqueira, we are not Germany, the HHS mandate is not a tax, and Catholicism isn’t claiming to be anything it hasn’t been for 2,000 years. The sincerity of any given claim shouldn’t be that hard to prove or disprove: look at their position before, and look at their position after.
“People who declare themselves to be christian to avoid a tax.
Both cases carry the same consequences, a degradation of religious values.”
You don’t make the case. A person doing this would only degrade himself. Religious values remain regardless of our sin.
In the book of Leviticus God clearly and unambiguously tells the Jews why he is giving them the land of the Canaanites.It is because of their abominable practices (sacrificing their children to Moloch,homosexual practices,tattooing their bodies, etc.) that the land will “spew them out”.It is clear that God - to whom vengeance belongs - visits His wrath on the nation which practices ungodly things.Not much has changed in 3,000 years.
To Pesqueira,
The situation in America is different and has nothing to do with tax-dodging.
The HHS Mandate is imposing demands on religious institutions(Not just the Catholic Church) that they cannot comply with because it would violate their religious beliefs. Because of this non-compliance, the Federal Government will tax these charities, hospitals, schools, and others to death because they won’t go against their religion.
This is a gross attack on the Constitution, which states that the government won’t establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercising of religion. The government forcing an individuals or a group of individuals to go against their religious beliefs is pretty much pitching our founding documents into the furnance.
And the whole “You cannot see beyond your nose” remark is childish and mean-spirited. Would you make such a rude statement in a face-to-face discussion?
Nevertheless less.. Declaring ones’self as a Christian is more tan Obama does…and it does give. Sense of which camp one belongs to!
The USCCB seems to overlook that this Law not only restricts our ability to exercise our conscience in relationship to abortion, contraception and sterilization but it potentially impinges on all of our God given liberties. This Law is a direct attack against our right to own property as evidenced in the form of unjust taxation. It also utilizes a top down coercion in direct opposition to the Church’s teaching of subsidiarity. It is incomprehensible why the USCCB fails to fight this Law from multiple angles as it is in direct contravention of our God given rights. If this Law is allowed to stand, the State will determine when or if we have children, which ones are allowed to live and then determine when after we have reached the sunset of our “productive” lives, will die. When taken to its logical conclusion, by tying every activity in life to health, the government will be able to control every aspect of our lives based on the “relationship” to the cost of remedial health care and the allocation of benefits based on our acquiescence to the heavy boot of government. This will leave no room for the Church. Maybe this is why the Church as condemned socialism! May God help us and Mary pray for us.
Can you hear me now? THROW THE BILL OUT! We the American People do not want this evil bill….we won’t accept a fix…..throw it out. The Bishops must be concerned with early demise of the elderly, mentally ill and the disabled as well as the murder of innocent babies in the womb. Death is death….period. This is evil from the word go….The elderly, mentally ill and the disabled will pay for healthcare but will be denied treatments paying the price for illegals to get free healthcare. This is what this bill is about…power and control…illegal votes. Hey, deaf Congress are you listening? You will on election day! Hey, Bishops are you listening? If you listened when this bill was introduced, you would not be sweating out the reversal of Religious Freedom. You supported this evil bill but got the surprise of your life when Obama showed his true colors…..Lies, lies, lies. When will you learn and care about all of the people fairly?
Sounds encouraging. Thanks for sharing.
GOOD NEWS! The U.S. District Court for Colorado on Friday blocked the Obama administration from requiring a small business owner in Colorado to provide no co-pay contraceptive coverage to its employees, as the Affordable Care Act directs. “On balance, the threatened harm to plaintiffs, impingement of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and the concomitant public interest in that right strongly favor the entry of injunctive relief,” Judge John L. Kane wrote in the order.
“These [Federal Government stated] interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion,” he said in an 18-page decision. “This harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon [the family run small business owner’s] constitutional and statutory rights,” the judge wrote. He noted that the government had already created numerous exceptions for religious employers, exempting over 190 million health plan participants. The law posed an imminent harm to the company’s owners by forcing them to support contraception, sterilization and abortion in violation of their religious beliefs or face steep fines [Federally imposed taxes on an individual entity], Kane said.
God bless you Rep. Rehberg for your efforts to include a conscience protections in the 2013 funding for the Dept of HHS.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.