WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, drawing cries of disappointment and concern – as well as a commitment to continue fighting – from pro-life and religious-freedom advocates nationwide.
Christen Varley, executive director of Conscience Cause, a nonpartisan advocacy organization that works to secure and defend religious freedom, said that she was “extremely disappointed” with the decision.
“The first line of the First Amendment in our Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to religious freedom, as our forefathers intended,” Varley said. “Now, we have opened the door to a government that sees no limit to the amount of freedoms it can take away.”
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled on June 28 that the law is constitutional, including an individual mandate that requires virtually all individuals to purchase health-insurance plans.
The justices said that while this mandate does not fall within the powers afforded by the Commerce Clause, the penalty that people must pay if they refuse to buy insurance can be understood instead as a kind of tax that Congress is authorized to impose under its taxing power.
The decision means that the fight over a highly controversial federal contraception mandate will continue. The mandate would have automatically perished if the law had been struck down.
Issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under authority granted by the Affordable Care Act, the mandate will require employers to offer health-insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.
The mandate has drawn widespread criticism from individuals and organizations representing a variety of religious and political backgrounds. Lawsuits challenging the regulation have been filed by more than 50 plaintiffs across the country, including EWTN, the Register's parent company.
“The decision by the United States Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act is certainly a disappointment for EWTN," said Michael Warsaw, president and chief executive officer of EWTN Global Catholic Network and publisher of the Register, regarding today’s decision. "It was our hope that the court’s decision would stop the implementation of the HHS mandate that requires employee health plans to provide coverage for morally objectionable services like contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. Because the court has upheld the law, the rules which empower the government to issue its unjust mandate appear to remain in effect. As a result, the EWTN lawsuit seeking relief from the mandate will continue to move forward.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing EWTN's lawsuit, issued a statement today following the decision. “The Becket Fund’s religious-liberty lawsuits against the unconstitutional HHS mandate will continue,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund. “Never in history has there been a mandate forcing individuals to violate their deeply held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine, a fine which could force many homeless shelters, charities and religious institutions to shut their doors.”
Bishops from every diocese in the U.S. have spoken out against the mandate, warning that it poses a severe threat to the religious liberty of those who object to it. They issued this statement today noting the law needs to fix conscience, abortion funding and immigration problems.
Varley said that the mandate “represents an egregious affront to religious liberty” and vowed that Conscience Cause would continue working with people of all faiths to petition Congress “to overrule this devastating policy, which undermines our religious freedom.”
Critics have also spoken out against a provision under the 2010 law regulating involuntary funding of insurance plans that cover elective abortions.
This will take place through a monthly surcharge for all people enrolled in plans covering abortion.
Regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act require that the surcharge be at least $1 per month, but they do not dictate any maximum rate, and nothing prohibits insurance companies from charging substantially more to pay for abortions.
This provision completely lacks a religious or moral exemption, and it forbids insurers from telling enrollees how much of their money is going to fund other people’s abortions, making it difficult for them to withhold that portion of their premium.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect and mobilize pro-life women, said that the Affordable Care Act was “fundamentally flawed” from the very beginning “because it makes American taxpayers complicit in the deaths of countless unborn children.”
“Over the last four years, President Obama has revealed his loyalty to the abortion industry,” Dannenfelser said.
“As the presidential race heats up, the Susan B. Anthony List will continue to remind American voters where the President’s allegiance truly lies,” she vowed. “We will not stop fighting until every U.S. taxpayer is freed from under-writing the abortion business.”
Tim Drake: Register Radio: HHS Mandate Update and Chart-topping Advent Music
Paul Kengor: The Calm Adult vs. the Petulant Scoffer
Comments
Post a Comment
Heaven weeps! and I weep. Personally, I must pray much to discern the next course of action on a very personal level. Will it be necessary cancel my health insurance to avoid this sin? God help us. We shall pay dearly as a nation for this affront to God’s law.
this is what the Catholic Church reaps for not reigning in the pro-choice members of the Church and the weak bishops of the Church for letting dissent go on in the Church…..you so called catholics voted for this person in the white house and he is going to do his best to destroy the liberties of our Church….YOU CANNOT VOTE FOR ANY DEMON-CRAT IN POLITICS AND CALL YOURSELF A CATHOLIC…THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF YESTERDAY HAS THROWN ITSELF IN WITH THE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING AND IT IS GETTING THE DIVINE JUSTICE IT TRULY DESERVES…what a sorry excuse our Church and our country has become…you pro-choice and liberal catholics make me sick
Isn’t the first thing you learn in University if you’re majoring in Journalism, is to present both sides of the argument fairly? Because I only see an extremely uninformed and one sided article.
Buckle your seatbelts…
I really, really hope Catholics will wake up this time & make a difference between now & November.At first healthcare reform didn’t look so bad, but now that we’ve seen the fine print,& the threats to religous freedom, we should know better.
I am wondering if this healthcare mandate is only constitutional through tax law, can religious groups be taxed? Can that be an argument for exemption for religious organizations? Also, Justice Roberts has given the power of the vote back to the people with his decision today. He was very clear that this was unconstitutional through commerce, only constitutional through tax. What do you think?
Looks like Our Lord sided with the poor this time.
Ah. A victory for social justice. But there’s that pesky little thing called the law of unintended consequences.
Posted by CeCi Castillo on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 1:57 PM (EST):Looks like Our Lord sided with the poor this time.”
************
How do you figure that? The poor already have health coverage under Medicaid & children of lower & lower-middle income families have state health insurance.
Lifenews.com has a roundup of responses from pro-life groups:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/28/pro-life-groups-disappointed-by-ruling-upholding-obamacare/
Further analysis and coverage on “National Review” online.
Come November, we’ll remember!
It is well- and long-settled law that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, particularly in the case of employment. The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, explicitly recognized this freedom for federal employees and elected officials by saying “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The only exception to this freedom is, perhaps ironically, for (loosely defined) ministers employed by bona fide religious groups.
When I was employed by Seventh Day Adventists, they did not (and could not) require me to bring vegetarian lunches to work. When I was employed by atheists, I could not be prohibited from displaying Christian symbols.
Similarly, no employer has the right to impose its religious beliefs on secular employees in the matter of medical care. Scientologists cannot forbid their employees from seeking psychiatric care. Christian Scientists cannot forbid their employees from having blood transfusions. Roman Catholics cannot forbid their employees from using contraceptives. (Ironically, the heirarchs of Rome have almost completely failed in trying to keep their own followers from using contraceptives.)
In addition to the foregoing, it must be noted that the IRS and many state income tax agencies subsidize employer-provided health insurance premiums by allowing their cost “above the line,” allowing the subtraction of the premiums from taxable income before the calculation of taxes. Also, some of the same agencies further subsidize employers by giving tax credits to some employers for providing insurance. And, of course, he who pays the piper gets to call the tune. The Roman Catholic Church has run afoul of this old adage in the areas of charity, adoptions, and education.
It’s really quite simple. The RCC does have freedom of religion, but the RCC must also tolerate the religious freedom of others, even when those people are employed by the RCC.
Perhaps the Roman Catholics who are trying to diminish the freedom of religion enjoyed by others have forgotten recent history. When I was young, Roman Catholics were regarded as dangerous. Conventional wisdom held that the Romans were too obedient to the Vatican and insufficiently obedient to the rule of law in the United States. I can recall residents of the wealthy, horsey suburb of Chicago in which I grew up joking about how liberal they were—because they had recently allowed Roman Catholics to move in. And there was more to this than jokes; when the owner of a large, heavy construction company was blackballed by the local country club, my father went to the next club board meeting to successfully convince them that the time for this prejudice had passed.
Most famously, Kennedy’s Presidential campaign was marked by vicious slurs about his allegience to the Pope. He won, and the prejudice quieted down. But now the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops seems hell-bent on reviving this ancient animosity. Whatever for?
@veskebjorn: No one is trying to force Catholic beliefs or practices upon anyone—no one is forcing anyone to go with a Catholic employer, they’re free to join someone else if they don’t agree that sterilization, contraception, and abortion are immoral. But if you immigrate to another country, do you learn the language, the laws, and the customs, or do you demand that they accommodate you—that they speak English, drive on the right side of the road, and do things as you do them? When in Rome, do as the Romans do, don’t force the Romans to do things as you do. I don’t even know what you think the Church is trying to “force” on anyone—she’s trying to maintain the status quo. It’s the federal government that’s forcing anti-Catholic practices on the American people. The government wants to control—the Church only wants to offer suggestions and leave it to you to decide whether to act on them or not.
Since the law is a tax and the Catholic Church is a tax exempt entity, shouldn’t the Catholic Church be exempt from the law?
Veskebjorn - Healthcare plans across the country have always offered varied plans. Not every plan covers dental care or eye care or membership to the gym. Using the concept that one must “pay the piper” doesn’t have anything to do with First Amendment rights to religious freedom especially when we are being mandated to provide preventive healthcare that is a stretch of semantics in that the services required such as contraceptives and abortifacients presuppose that a child is a disease. When was the last time you heard someone say “We’re expecting a disease in November”? Are you currently benign or in remission?
“state health insurance”
inadequately uneven, especially in redstates.
Veskebjorn is correct. The patient (payer) and provider (payee) are the only significant participants in both activities (health services performed and compensation). Employers are merely middlemen, who, if not willing to maintain standards, have legal option to stop/avoid baiting employees with an inferior product.
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.