-255x255.jpg)
WASHINGTON—A letter from 154 bipartisan members of Congress is urging the Obama administration to reverse a contraception mandate that religious employers say would require them to violate their consciences.
The Feb. 6 letter to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, condemned the recent mandate as an “unprecedented overreach by the federal government.”
Congressional leaders urged Sebelius to “reconsider the final rule” as it applies to employers and individuals who have moral or religious objections to the coverage required by the mandate.
They also asked her for “specific details on the process followed in the reading and evaluating of the public comments submitted” about the mandate.
The letter comes amid a storm of criticism over Sebelius’ recent announcement that virtually all employers will soon be required to purchase health-insurance plans that cover contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization.
In their letter, the congressmen noted that Sebelius’ department had received more than 200,000 comments on the rule during its public comment period. Many of these comments objected to the “narrow scope of the religious exemption” included in the mandate.
The religious exemption applies only to those organizations that exist to instill religious values and limit their employment and services to primarily members of their own faith. While most churches are covered by the exemption, huge numbers of religious schools, hospitals and charitable organizations are not.
However, despite the massive wave of criticism, Sebelius refused to broaden the exemption in issuing the final rule on Jan. 20.
In response, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., led a congressional effort to compose a letter voicing “strong opposition” to the mandate, which he described as “radical” and an “attack on the religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.”
In their joint letter, congressional leaders observed that the mandate infringes upon the conscience rights not only of those who object to contraception, but also “of those who, for moral or religious reasons, oppose abortion.”
They explained that the regulation requires coverage of certain “drugs and devices that can function as abortifacients,” such as Plan B and “ella.”
They also said that the one-year extension granted to religiously affiliated organizations that object to the mandate “only delays the inevitable violation of conscience.”
The members of Congress asked Sebelius to consider the concerns that had been raised.
They requested that she “suspend the final rule” until an arrangement has been made to “ensure that both employers and individuals are afforded their constitutionally protected conscience rights.”
Edward Pentin: U.S. Ambassador to Holy See Steps Down
Jimmy Akin: Sr. Keehan Turns on Obama?
Comments
Post a Comment
Is there any way for us to view this letter and who signed it? I would like to see if my representatives in Congress are onboard with this or not.
Here is the real question; how many of those 154 elected officials voted for the Affordable Care Act in the first place? I would bet a very large percentage. I suppose if pressed, many of these same folks would say they voted for the Affordable Care Act becuase they did not foresee this coming.
Yet again, just one more example of why legislation MUST be read before it is voted upon. The political process in this country has become sadly toxic to the citizenry.
Service as an elected official should become largely a matter of volunteerism—with some reasonable stipends to cover costs. Plato had the right idea that politicians should be dragged into leadership with hesitance, rather than chomping at the bit.
Finally, last venting comment of the day—of the 99% ers that are supporting Obama right now, DO YOU REALIZE just how MUCH money he has raised for his campaign? Wouldn’t that 70 Million dollars be far better used to help relieve unemployment in this country? 70 Million dollars could support a lot of jobs…
And, by the way, the 70 Million is sitting in a BANK account…Just thought you should know…
And why do we not read headlines like “US Government mandates women to take cancer causing pills” ???? ... since:
A National Cancer Insitute US Governments website (National Institute of Health) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
factsheet quote: “Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives” and “Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer” and “A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had an elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers. ” ???
Also In a July 29th 2005 press release, the World Health Organization declared that combined estrogen-progestogen Oral Contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. Specifically, they said that “Use of OC’s increases risk of breast, cervix, and liver cancer.” The data was presented by a working group of 21 scientists from 8 countries convened by the cancer research agency of the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Companies that make birth control pills also have admitted a link between the drug and breast cancer.
A letter? Wow!
Congress needs to re-assert its status as a co-equal branch of government, and block this heinous regulation put forward by the Secretary of HHS. This administration’s secretaries are not the fist to attempt to legislate through regulation, and this usurpation of power is the fault of a series of spineless Congresses abdicating responsibility and authority.
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.