-255x255.jpg)
Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities.. Since 1980, Doerflinger has negotiated with legislators and the executive branch to advance pro-life legislation on Capitol Hill.
On Nov. 9, he spoke with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond about the 2012 election’s impact on the battle to overturn the federal contraception mandate, as well as other pro-life ramifications. He explained why legal challenges filed by for-profit companies have met with some success in the courts. And he reported on another legislative opportunity to strengthen conscience protections — the upcoming Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes an amendment similar to the Fortenberry-Blunt Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.
What have been the bright spots of the 2012 election for the pro-life movement?
The most positive development is the defeat of assisted suicide in Massachusetts — the “Death With Dignity Act.”
Massachusetts was deliberately chosen by proponents of assisted suicide as the most likely state to legalize the practice in the Northeast because it’s a liberal state and because it allows for laws to be made by referendum.
Assisted suicide has never succeeded by legislative action. Where it has passed in states like Oregon, it did so by appealing to people’s emotions in radio and television ads. When legislators look at the issue more carefully, they turn it down.
There are now no Republican members of Congress at all in Massachusetts in the House or Senate, and it makes the defeat of the initiative all the more remarkable. The combination of moral and practical arguments appealed to different voters.
Montana passed a new law to require parental notification on abortion. The parental-notification issue is widely supported across the country, but there were legal problems with the current statute because there had been some court action, which kept the statute from being applied effectively.
President Obama’s re-election means that the federal contraception mandate still stands. What strategies are now being deployed to tackle the narrow religious exemption and the need for conscience provisions for other private employers who oppose the mandate on religious or moral grounds?
So far, we have pursued remedies to the contraception mandate in all three branches of government, and all those avenues remain open.
Post-election, what are the prospects on Capitol Hill of passing legislation that strengthens conscience protections to remedy the problem?
The election left things largely as they were: We count the same number of votes in the new Senate as in the old — not in terms of party affiliation, but in terms of pro-life position.
Olympia Snowe [R-Maine], who regularly voted against our legislation, is gone. But the new Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., has almost always voted to support pro-life legislation.
The only time that a conscience measure for the mandate was considered in the Senate it got 48 votes, with very little time to explain the issues.
Getting to 50 or 51 votes in the Senate could happen, especially if you can attach legislation to a must-pass vehicle, where you have leverage to trade back and forth, to get policy riders approved. We are not giving up on that and will continue to pursue this agenda.
Would the president sign such a measure into law?
Perhaps if the alternative is to veto a bill he favors, like an entire appropriations bill. Then perhaps he would.
If the courts are continuing to bring injunctions against the mandate, the administration may not want to continue pursing 35 different lawsuits on this and will perhaps back down.
At this point, how might the House press for a legislative remedy to the mandate?
There is a continuing resolution that keeps the government funded until March. They don’t have to do the appropriations bill until then, but there are rumors that Congress and the White House — to avert the “fiscal cliff” — will have to do a deal on revenue and spending. Some would like the appropriations bill to be part of that [remedy]. Even before the end of this year, we may have a debate on this issue.
Right now, the House committee draft of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill has language like that of the Fortenberry-Blunt bill. I believe the House leadership will fight for that in negotiations with the Senate. Where that comes on the priorities list, we can’t say.
It is now becoming very clear that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay and that we really need relief. We will be urging Catholics to write to their congressional representatives in support of that provision — Section 537 of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
We see every reason to continue our efforts in both Congress and the courts and to continue to ask the administration to take a more flexible view of the conscience issues involved.
What are the bright spots on legal challenges to the mandate?
In two cases, federal courts have given individual businesses a preliminary injunction against the mandate.
If even a family-owned business can be exempt because the individuals involved are Catholics, how much stronger would the case be for Catholic institutions?
Why have two for-profit companies received temporary injunctions, while Church-affiliated plaintiffs have failed to obtain a reprieve?
For-profit companies said they needed it now because they are required to comply now. But religious organizations received an extra year to comply — their deadline is next August — and so the administration has [filed papers in court that] said the issue is not ripe [for nonprofits].
This has meant that you had to lead with cases where your argument might be weakest — a for-profit company with a religious-freedom right. Yet two such cases received preliminary injunctions.
The government is arguing that if you run a business — if you are a for-profit company — you don’t have religious freedom. They call for-profit businesses “secular” companies, which seems strange in the case of a Bible publisher.
In fact, there are religious orders that sell items, from produce to jams and jellies and handmade caskets, to support themselves and make money. Does that mean they aren’t monks? Of course not.
The families that own these for-profit companies say, “We are citizens and owners of these companies, and we have a religious-freedom right. We want to run companies that are consistent with our religious beliefs.”
Haven’t the for-profit companies that filed legal challenges documented how their faith has shaped their internal policies and other business practices?
In First Amendment jurisprudence, the usual practice is that if someone says [a law] will burden my religion, it’s not the government’s job to start an investigation.
In a Missouri case where an injunction has been denied so far, the judge said that having to make this indirect payment to health coverage is not a substantial burden on religion.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been told by lawyers that that is an unusual statement for a judge to make in a First Amendment case. Usually, if someone says, “This burdens religion — my religion teaches against this,” it’s not the court’s job to say, “That’s not so bad.”
The government is second-guessing your theology for you. We are going to have a government definition of Catholic teaching on material cooperation? It doesn’t make any sense.
No final decisions have made in the challenges filed by for-profits in Colorado and Michigan that received preliminary injunctions against the mandate.
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
Benjamin Wiker: The Church and the (Secular) State
Comments
Post a Comment
I’m not a lawyer, either (nor do I play one on television), but IMO, the target is now the Congress; forget the president or the Supreme Court. Congress can get anything it really wants past the president, and (assuming it has the will) take back the legislative power usurped by the Supreme Court through the expansion of judicial review. This requires (again in my opinion) a viable alternative not just to the healthcare plan that places too much power in the hands of government, but an overall program to return economic — and thus political — power to the people . . . ALL the people. We’ve proposed a “universal healthcare” plan without mandates as part of a larger strategy we call “Capital Homesteading” that (all things considered) should be an easier sell to an elected Congress than a candidate seeking reelection or election. It’s at least worth considering: http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/national/C-Healthcare12-07.pdf
While I am not a Catholic, this article lifts My confidence. I will now go and worker harder to get at least a robust exemption for Everyone from this mandate and I urge Others, no matter Your faith, to do the same.
Anti-reproduction marketed as “reproductive health”? Give me a break.
Religious persecution legalized by the HHS Mandate under the Obama Administration will never be justified in the courts of world history. Currently, Federal lawyers are working to keep religious business owners (small and large) and religious institutions of every denomination from rebutting the unjust law by dismissing or postponing lawsuits. We are watching Government (which makes its own laws to protect its own laws and itself) intentionally - legally - destroy American religious freedom.
How and why are they pulling this off right before our eyes? Was money handed over by abortion/sterilization/contraceptive industry lobbyists in exchange for assurance their products would have a tremendous marketing advantage because they would be distributed to the public for free? And were those businesses and insurance associates informed that in order to eliminate profit loss by their companies, they would be forcing people to supply, pay for and distribute the products to others at their own expense? Did the Administration tell them it would do this to religious people who believe the products are the worst of moral evils? And were they informed that HHS laws punish potential distributors with crippling, bankrupting fines so costly they have to shut down their businesses and charitable organizations if they cannot comply?
I refer you to the plights (among many) of the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of Washington, Hercules Industries and Weingartz Supply Company (both threatened Catholic businesses in Colorado), and Hobby Lobby, owned by evangelical Christians who expect $1.3 million/day fines. Forcing people to go against their religious convictions or suffer severe penalties is religious persecution.
Making laws to support immoral acts has never been a practice of viable, well-intentioned nations. I wonder why the Administration finds it necessary to do this. It doesn’t even try to justify the nonsense of these laws. It relies on ignorance and venomous slogans aimed at denigrating those opposed to HHS. It exploits the innocent, forgiving nature of uninformed citizens who think our government would never do such a thing. It portrays religious morality as being the motivating force behind a “War on Women”, while it is the Administration’s laws that assault natural femininity and masculinity. It portrays killing of infants in the womb as being a “health” issue. Consequently, it relies on our traditional respect of doctors who volunteer to do the heartbreaking, painful, chemical/surgical extraction from a woman’s body (abortion), the cutting involved in vasectomies, hysterectomies and tubal ligations (sterilization), and the distribution of drugs and devices that encourage men and women to have promiscuous “risk-free” sex (contraception).
The societal results of the products the HHS Mandate supports were never admirable. Has the Administration become so enamored with anti-reproduction advocates that it cannot resolve its dilemma? Is it just fumbling for something else to do, thinking the entire U.S. will just follow in lockstep? Does it feel it has no recourse but to continue on the same depraved path and to drag us along, dressing it up like the pathway to heaven so we’ll ignore the implications of what’s happening?
It is time the Administration considers a way out. Let us try to help, considering the positive side of all this. There is always the hope of turning all this around. The HHS Mandate laws need to be repealed across the board. Only pride and bull-headedness say we cannot start anew. We can bring our nation back to a much-needed state of morality. We can head down the pathway which brings joy to all hearts and peace to all nations.
It’s interesting that while the Obama administration claims it’s too early for religious organizations to challenge the HHS mandate because it doesn’t affect them yet, the judge who denied an injunction to a Michigan company said they filed the case too late, even though it was just after the mandate took effect for them. This is clearly going to have to go further up the courts just to get some consistency in how it’s viewed.
The contraception mandate will not be able to pass scrutiny as a tax.
Congress does not have the power to mandate that every Insurance Company must become a contraception provider, so that those who refuse to condone the contraception mentality, which promotes promiscuity, and thus the sexual objectification of the human person, and in some cases, the destruction of Human Life, must choose between violating their morals or Religious Faith, or going without Health Care and being penalized for choosing not to violate their morals or Religious Faith. The State has no compelling reason to coerce every Insurance company to peddle contraception, when contraception, which is not Life-affirming or Life-sustaining, and thus not Good for our posterity or the prosperity of this Nation, is not healthcare, to begin with.
The biggest fallacy regarding the measures included in the HHS mandate, and one that I hope is being brought up in these court cases, is that they aren’t health care at all, because they aren’t being used to treat a medical condition or prevent disease. (I realize that some contraceptives are prescribed for certain medical conditions, but that use of them is not what the HHS mandate is all about, which is “preventive care.”)
Rather, these measures are merely elective services that some people find convenient, which happen to be provided by medical practitioners. They aren’t provided by doctors because they improve health, but because they might be a danger to it if used improperly (or simply require medical expertise to be implemented). This lends them a false sense of legitimacy from the perspective of true medical care. If it weren’t for the medical expertise needed to administer them, they would be much more appropriately found next to the XXX movie rack in an adult bookstore than in a doctor’s office.
I have just read a book “They Fired the First Shot-2012” by A Friend og Medjgorje. It would do well for the Catholic Church and all other Americans who will fight to save our country and our souls. Fighting in the courts and relying on the branches of Government who have shown their socialism leanings is a waste of time and misleading to we the people. The church should deal in truth no matter what. It has not done this for decades. There is no justice when those who have the authority to teach know not what is up. Our church is under a Moscow/Vatican treaty to not condemn Freemasonry or Communism (see the book ““False Friends of Fatima” by “America Needs Fatima”. That is why we are now overcome by the Communist Agenda to grind America down (see Agenda Documentary.com). The American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, and the FDA have successfully covered up all cures for Cancer to promote the policy of treatment which has been totally unsuccessful and has got the country walking for the cure etc. Our laws are written by departments of the gov. who have no authority. The FED is illegal and unconstitutional as is the Soc. Sec and the Income Tax and the IRS. The public schools have been influenced by Russia since 1913 (see “Brave New Schools”. These laws we try to fight are not law if they go against the natural law. We waste our time fighting in an activist court. There is no common law any more. We are at the mercy of lawyers who keep secret the reality of our slavery to those who have taken away our country. The church has lost the spiritual authority. Why are the churches empty. We are all at the ball park. Read 2nd Macc. chapter 4. How long did it take for Jason to make all of Jerusalem Helenists? Our Universities are Youth Clubs teaching the Greek way of life (Fraternities). Why did Paul debate the Helenists who wanted to kill him in Acts. We are Helenists. We immulate the lovers of the world and thus are persecuted by them. The protestants do not know who the Helenists are. But, neither do we. We don’t hear about this in the church.
I have just read a book “They Fired the First Shot-2012” by A Friend og Medjgorje. It would do well for the Catholic Church and all other Americans who will fight to save our country and our souls. Fighting in the courts and relying on the branches of Government who have shown their socialism leanings is a waste of time and misleading to we the people. The church should deal in truth no matter what. It has not done this for decades. There is no justice when those who have the authority to teach know not what is up. Our church is under a Moscow/Vatican treaty to not condemn Freemasonry or Communism (see the book ““False Friends of Fatima” by “America Needs Fatima”. That is why we are now overcome by the Communist Agenda to grind America down (see Agenda Documentary.com). The American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, and the FDA have successfully covered up all cures for Cancer to promote the policy of treatment which has been totally unsuccessful and has got the country walking for the cure etc. Our laws are written by departments of the gov. who have no authority. The FED is illegal and unconstitutional as is the Soc. Sec and the Income Tax and the IRS. The public schools have been influenced by Russia since 1913 (see “Brave New Schools”. These laws we try to fight are not law if they go against the natural law. We waste our time fighting in an activist court. There is no common law any more. We are at the mercy of lawyers who keep secret the reality of our slavery to those who have taken away our country. The church has lost the spiritual authority. Why are the churches empty. We are all at the ball park. Read 2nd Macc. chapter 4. How long did it take for Jason to make all of Jerusalem Helenists? Our Universities are Youth Clubs teaching the Greek way of life (Fraternities). Why did Paul debate the Helenists who wanted to kill him in Acts. We are Helenists. We immulate the lovers of the world and thus are persecuted by them. The protestants do not know who the Helenists are. But, neither do we. We don’t hear about this in the church.I don’ expect you will include my opinion. However you should check it out if you don’t already agerr with me.
Why would the UCCB use Mr. Doerflinger as their lobbyist if he is not a
lawyer?? (Some bishops relative ??)
I sense a lack of enthusiasm on the UCCB and the entire catholic community
about the mandate since the same President is in charge. You are all waiting for some miracle to occur. Well,it may not happen. The most telling fact in the last election was that one half of the voting catholic
voice voted for this President…Where were the strong homilies, the Holy
Name Societies, the KC’s??Tepid, No inaudible!!
If before August there is not a million (or two million) man march on
Washington, all will surely be lost. I will be there…You?
It must be said again, Catholic democrats are to blame for their support of this and the infanticide and war on marriage brought by this administration(and speaking of health care, writing emails like this to NCR is truly helping to improve my heath after the sadness of the election results caused physical discomfort. Catholic democrats will be happy(?) to know I offered the discomfort to God).
Wait, why only attach it to “must-pass” legislation? Stick it on every bill which moves. Heres how the plan works: Every morning, the Republican and/or pro-Life caucus gets together and reviews a schedule for all bills still up for consideration; each bill gets the amendment proposed by a separate Representative/Senator than the last, showing just how broad the opposition to the mandate is. Each and every bill which is discussed, considered, voted upon, etc., gets the proposed amendment. *SOMETHING* will stick. Limiting efforts to just “must-pass” legislation weakens Our position. Never give up a single inch of ground, so to speak!
It seems that religions are perilously close to forfeiting tax exempt status; and rightfully so…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/billy-graham-election-irs_n_2119470.html?ref=topbar&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
The threat to end the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church is (not to sound too pompous) fatuous. I neither heard nor heard of any explicit instructions on how to vote; reminding people of the official tenets of their faith and the logical consequences of failing to adhere to them in the next life is irrelevant, especially when the Church is being specifically targeted by certain laws. Otherwise the government would be trying to have its cake and eat it, too, by dictating religious belief or practice on the one hand on the grounds that it is not religious and therefore forced to act, then penalizing an institution on the grounds that it IS religious, and therefore forbidden to act. In any event, if such a silly attempt were to be made — and it is silly, as every member of a religious institution would be “upset” for the violation of a principle (“temples are not taxed”) — organized religion does not come under the jurisdiction of the State; it is a discrete society of its own and the State lacks the competence. And what about every church that had Mr. Obama speak during this or the previous campaign? That was far more blatant than anything any Catholic priest or bishop ever did — and the Catholic Church can prove in writing that it is not the policy of the institution. The individuals responsible, not the institutions, would be the ones to be penalized — if they did anything wrong.
Michael D. Greaney, presently it would be a stretch that the government would come down on religion in a significant manner; e.g. remove tax exempt status. Yet, religions are indeed pressing the issue. Mandates are the core of a national health payer system; without which health care would fail. “...Mr. Obama speak during the previous campaign?” is a specious retort. Obama is not advocating for a religion, and where he spoke or where any other president has spoken is not germane to the article.
Where was the president of the USCCB? MIA…The Catholics who re-elected this administration should have been informed what their obligation was regarding abortion and birth control and the HHS mandate. The tone about these issues was watered down at best. The spiritual welfare of our souls is at stake. Were the voters for re-election of this administration who are Catholic in a coma? This is not a grey area. You are either for life or for death.
We see many commercials for abused animals and tears being shed for them. If anyone saw a real abortion oceans of tears would be shed and maybe we would stop this infanticide. We place more importance on animals than on human life? We need to reassess our priorities. How deceived we were by the deceiver.
@ Jesuitical graduate of Boston College
Your “It seems that religions are perilously close to forfeiting tax exempt status; *and rightfully so…*”- 11/13 @3:18 PM” plus your complaint it “is not germane to the article” - 11/14 @11:44 AM (after your own intro of a Huffingtonpost bias) strongly suggest little knowledge of the Church Magisterium if you claim to be a true Catholic or else indicates your non-membership in the Church. It is not helpful to further respond in this forum without your disclosure because conscience is a SACRED Gift and Responsibility that no government has a right to attack or undermine—most especially not for the reason you point to as important, namely, that actuarial models show that a world full of health-vulnerable robots and their government would benefit from the required-mandate approach. God-Imaged people are not robots and that factor trumps use of a number of such models.
The many commercials for abused or neglected animals come from Charities that protect the animals against cruelty. We do not have any Charity other than Priests for Life that are fighting for the unborn and in my book they are really heroes these priests where in the United States abortion is normal. We do not have to be for the welfare of the animals or the unborn, both are important for my family and me and for this reason we support both!, compassion is not scare in my family.
“The only thing for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” I believe was by Edmund Burke
If more and more good practicing Catholics would have their conscience well formed, I think we would not have this problem because Obama would not have been elected.
We should keep on praying for the Freedom of Religion and the protection of conscience even though it seems we could be losing. The last word will come from God, sooner or later.
Margarita, I have no doubt from reading your post that you are sincere in your belief, and that your spirit demands that goodness and righteousness prevail. Yet, I also think that it is misquided due to the statement; “...have their consciences well formed, I think we would not have this problem because Obama would not have been elected.” Which political party is oriented to the precept; ‘whatever you do for the least of My brethren you do also unto me’. Which party represents the unfortunate, the impoverished, poor, wretched, weak, elderly and so forth…certainly not the opposition party to Obama. Would you prefer a political party whose sole interest is Wall Street, financial holdings and gives lip service to social issues. As a minority party the republican party adheres to pro-life, stem cell research, traditional marriage only because of its need to get those votes. Following Romney’s sound defeat note the quick turn around and necessity of the republicans to change its view noting the demographics. If that party continues to nominate the likes of Paul Ryan it will never win a national election. The church also must come to grips and quit substituting a cry for religious freedom, when in fact it is intolerant and imbued with disingenous retorts and mired in antiquated postitions.
Sadly, an assumption is foisted upon the ‘low information’ populace not to vote for Obama due to abortion issues. Fact remains, that abortion is the law of the land. The president, as chief executive, is obligated under oath to enforce that law. Romney lies when he says he would change it. The law regulating abortion is the province of congress and the Supreme Court determines whether that law is constitutional. Yet to the utter dimay of truthfulness, too many have bought into absurdities promulgated by Fox News and other like right wing clap trap.
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.