Throughout much of the 2012 presidential campaign season, Catholic leaders and their allies have struggled to explain to the public how the federal contraception mandate threatens the free exercise of religion enshrined in the Constitution.
The two presidential debates on domestic issues and one vice-presidential debate looked like an ideal opportunity to break through partisan efforts to frame opposition to the mandate as a “war on women.” After all, both the GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, have continuously spoken out against the mandate and its narrow religious exemption that forces Catholic institutions to provide co-pay-free contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization in their employee health plans.
“An effort has been made to see that a question about the [Health and Human Services] HHS mandate is asked during the presidential debate,” said Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore during an interview with the Register in September. “It would be good to cut through the public-relations fog created since the start of the year.”
The chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, Archbishop Lori has labored to get beyond the political spin that has left many voters confused. At a Feb. 29 House Committee hearing on the issue, he observed, “Ever since the mandate has been announced, fair is foul, and foul is fair.”
But after this week’s second presidential debate on domestic issues, Catholics and activists concerned about the federal law are far from satisfied with the substance of the discussion.
Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund, the public interest group that is representing many of the plaintiffs in the 30 lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, registered her disappointment following the second presidential debate.
“What I would have liked to have seen from both sides is an acknowledgement that the mandate is a serious religious-freedom issue. It is not a problem that has been fixed, as the administration has tried to paint it. It is not something we can just ignore,” said Windham.
The frustration arising from the debate centers on President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden’s inaccurate statements about the mandate. But some opponents of the controversial federal law are also chagrined that Mitt Romney in particular did not use the debates to set the record straight.
On the First Things website, Anna Williams echoed the disappointment of many critics of the mandate in her critique of Romney’s performance during the Oct. 16 presidential debate.
“The Romney of last night’s debate … would rather assure women of their continuing access to contraception than assure religious groups that they will not be forced to betray their consciences. He does not want to rock the boat.
“And this apparent desire to avoid confrontation, to say and do whatever pleases potential supporters, has been evident throughout the man’s political career.”
Religious-liberty issues did not surface in the Oct. 3 presidential debate at the University of Denver, though Romney mentioned in passing that he supported “religious tolerance and freedom.”
But during the Oct. 11 vice-presidential debate at Centre College in Danville, Ky., the moderator asked both candidates, who are Catholic, to explain their “personal” views about abortion.
Ryan used that question as an opportunity to attack the HHS mandate.
“What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare, with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country,” said Ryan. “They’re infringing on our ‘first freedom,’ the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our churches should not have to sue the federal government to maintain their religious liberties.”
Biden got his turn to respond to the question about abortion — saying he was personally opposed but could not force his view on all Americans — and he soon moved on to the mandate issue.
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear: No religious institution — Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital or any other hospital — none has to either refer for contraception; none has to pay for contraception; none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact,” the vice president asserted.
Ryan soon got his chance to challenge Biden’s suggestion that the mandate controversy had been resolved.
“Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic Church and religious liberty [in terms of the mandate]. If they agree with you, why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference,” Ryan argued, and he seemed poised for a more robust discussion of the issue when the moderator cut him off, bringing the debate back to abortion.
The following day, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops swiftly challenged Biden’s assertion that the dispute between Church leaders and the Obama administration had been resolved.
“This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers.’ That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to ‘Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital’ or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served,” read an unsigned statement issued by the USCCB.
The statement made clear that the president’s proposed “accommodation” did “not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation ‘to pay for contraception’ and ‘to be a vehicle to get contraception.’”
With no acceptable accommodation available, the statement read, “USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.”
Did Ryan’s comments and the USCCB’s statement of clarification effectively challenge the administration’s ongoing campaign to present the “accommodation” as a solution to the problem?
It is hard to tell, when just a few media reports fact-checked the reasons why religious plaintiffs were still suing the administration over the mandate. Further, only Catholic media and a handful of news blogs picked up the USCCB’s statement on the debate.
In the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., it was the president who went on the offensive, returning to his party’s now-familiar pattern of framing the issue as an attack on women’s access to contraception.
“You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health-care choices that women are making,” Obama stated.
“I think that’s a mistake. In my health-care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Because this is not just a health issue; it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket.
“Governor Romney not only opposed it — he suggested that, in fact, employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.”
Romney immediately rejected the suggestion that he sought to block access to contraception.
“I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not,” Romney said. “Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives, and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.”
But the GOP presidential candidate did not stick with the topic and accuse his opponent of trampling on the First Amendment rights of millions of Catholics and other Americans who objected to the federal mandate.
The following day, the Romney campaign sought to flesh out his position. The Wall Street Journal quoted senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom: “What he does support is the right of religious institutions to live by the tenets of their faith…he supports a conscience exemption for Catholics and other faithful people.”
But Romney’s decision to pivot away from an opportunity to go on the attack sparked some questions in the conservative blogosphere.
“I wonder if Romney’s defensive response about the HHS mandate reflects a political judgment that this is a losing issue for Republicans — and if that’s right, I wonder if that judgment is correct,” asked National Review’s Romesh Ponnuru, a suggestion given additional credence as the Romney campaign released a new ad that presents him as a moderate on social issues.
In The Washington Post, Jacques Berlinerblau, an associate professor and director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, viewed Obama's decision to raise the mandate issue as an attempt to reframe, and possibly defuse, the HHS mandate as a “pocketbook issue.”
“Although he had been asked a question about gender-based income inequality, he intentionally steered the conversation to a subject he would have been reluctant to discuss just a few months back: contraception," noted Berlinerblau in an Oct. 17 op-ed that also expressed puzzlement about Romney's retreat from the religious-liberty issue.
“Strangely, Romney, in his follow-up, didn’t mention that either. In so doing, the governor may have blundered by not pressing his advantage on a topic that always whips up his base into a frenzy.”
However, Becket Fund’s Windham suggested that both presidential candidates showed little inclination to offer a more complete argument on this subject, in part, because the interlocking issues aren’t easy to explain and can easily confuse and offend.
“We still have a challenge explaining why accounts of a supposed compromise are inaccurate,” said Windham, who gave high marks to Ryan and the USCCB for a “good job” explaining the basic issues.
Lila Rose, the pro-life activist who heads Live Action, said that the mandate’s opponents are still perfecting their message and that Catholics critical of Romney’s debate performance should remember that the GOP candidate is committed to repealing the Affordable Care Act, which authorizes the mandate.
“Speaking for myself, what encourages me about Romney for president is that he is against Obamacare,” Rose told the Register.
“But it’s true that most voters don’t understand this issue, and we need to continue the education process to explain why religious liberty is non-negotiable,” she added. “We are in the middle of the great fight. I don’t think the ending is written yet. Those who know the truth must speak out. It is essential that anyone who is elected, especially the president, needs to fight for that.”
Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things, agreed that it is no easy thing for Romney or Ryan to compress all the arguments and details related to the mandate controversy into a digestible “sound bite.”
“If I stand up and say, ‘The administration has failed to respect religious freedom,’ and then Obama says, ‘Our administration has provided a carefully crafted response,' and then I have to come back and say, ‘Yes, but it’s not adequate,’ that is not a sound bite.”
Part of the challenge for the bishops and other opponents of the mandate, Reno added, is that religious freedom is not a “mature issue.”
“It took a decade for the pro-life movement to find its footing and figure out how to get traction with the public and bring out people’s natural moral intuitions,” he noted. “That effort included an educational campaign to help people understand what was happening, and the 'ultrasound revolution' helped reinforce moral truth. These threats to religious freedom are really new.”
If the mandate stands, Reno predicts that threats to religious liberty will have to worsen before the majority of Americans, including the nation’s political leaders, take notice.
“Our politicians don’t lead; they follow,” he observed.
That said, even though the mandate was only approved last January, he sees some promising signs of real traction on the issue. Just as the Catholic Church spearheaded the effort to overturn legal abortion in the United States after Roe v. Wade, so the bishops are again laying a foundation for a new moral movement with political consequences.
“When it comes to religious liberty, the Church is doing a good job,” Reno said. “At the parish level, I have been quite surprised by all the homilies I have heard from pastors. The message has been clear and unequivocal. That is a really healthy sign.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register's senior editor.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
@ Jesuitical graduate of Boston College:
“Thusly, in no manner of speaking can the church claim contraception as an intrinsic evil.”
.
Had you not used the term “thusly”— which ties your above conclusion to your misunderstanding of how the Magisterium functions and then teaches—the rest of your sentence becomes accidentally correct simply because you use “contraception” in its broadest sense. But the Catholic Church teaches that contraception-use *OUTSIDE the case of treating rape* IS an intrinsic evil. Hence use of a truly non-abortifacient contraceptive against successful invasion of rape-sperm is NOT an intrinsic evil.
.
IF you are truly Catholic you will appreciate the following link on use of contraceptives to “fight AIDS”:
.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=113954
.
“Holy See Opposes Condoms, Needle-Exchange Programs In Fight Against Aids”
.
You also lack understanding of our National Founding and of the nature of truth-backed civil rights. *ASSERTED civil rights* do not for that reason alone automatically qualify as valid “civil rights”, such as when the ASSERTION of a right to access “preventive contraceptives” involves serious mistreatment of Catholics as if we are lower animals *without consciences*.
.
While the Declaration of Independence (DOI) cannot be wholly incorporated into the Constitution because much of it pertains to a different set of circumstances, the universally relevant portions of the DOI remain *vital and influential* for valid interpretation of the Constitution, hence for evaluating “asserted civil rights”.
.
Forward thinking Founders underscored that importance of the DOI in an astutely compact way – by including proper DOI legacy via an otherwise-unnecessary “second-dating” of the Constitution (same section, same time in the ratification process). That historically important “double-dating” act of the Founders’ wisdom in 1787 continues today to spotlight the EARLIER DOI date which reminds us that our founding principles from 1776 are not-to-be-abandoned but instead are to be supported and strengthened in our second stage (the Constitution) about which we also acknowledge imperfections in its Preamble: a “more” perfect union. But one should not confuse wrong claims by a very few who think “Lord” in the *standard dating method* proves anything. It is the existence of that “unnecessary” second dating that defeats secular revisionists unless we are apathetic!
.
Here’s one of those imperfect but universally relevant portions from 1776 which can’t be neutralized by “revisionists”: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
.
Note that “unalienable Rights” have the INHERENT property of being “self-evident” – which presents a MUCH higher bar facing attempted validation of *humanly asserted* rights (e.g., re preventive contraception) to be enforced as a “civil right” via some “majority argument” or by claiming a “growing consensus” which characterizes unstable societies like America, at least currently. Indeed, All-Knowing Creator God does not create unalienable Rights which inherently conflict to a point that one must do evil in order to accommodate the other (consult Romans 3:8 and double-effect principle).
.
Presumed Catholic graduate of Boston College, do you REALLY think that forced cooperation of your (?) Catholic Church to accommodate success for intrinsic evils like contraception (outside of rape) by a secular-government-in-conflict-with the SELF-EVIDENT truth that God created *sacred conscience* within his new children—is merely a matter of protecting an *asserted* civil right to have access to contraceptives some of which are abortifacient or of such chemical nature as to make the Catholic teaching “None Dare Risk Murder” take second place to others who can only *assert* a “civil right” that is entirely non-self-evident?
.
I look forward to your analysis which cannot depend mainly on citing some majority or trend. Truth and “self-evident” criteria are not automatic-products of “democracies” which are sometimes tyrannies by majority-bullying. Perhaps you will even agree that on the HHS issue re conscience and Catholic obligations that President Obama treats American Catholics like *animals-without-consciences* and further agree that Catholics have a divine charge to “Enter[ ] into the secular world of hospitals, charities, housing” to help people regardless of their beliefs, thus rendering presumed “civil rights” that conflict with God’s Will as obviously FAKE “rights”.
I doubt very much that Boston College would agree that their students don’t receive a Catholic education! Many that went on to higher education at Catholic institutions came from Catholic institutions that taught catechism…heaven, yes heaven, forbid they be taught to think! Regarding comments on the HHS mandate. Read some reality ... http://obamacare.net/the-real-benefits-of-obamacare/ ... and keep in mind that should Romney be elected within two days millions of Americans will have their healthcare yanked from under them. Are you going to care? Also keep in mind that right now anyone receiving their care with benefits from the government, military retirees and veterans, have all these services provided, as well they should; but so should All. Would you suggest that those covered by Tricare for Life say no thank you I don’t want to do business with anyone who provides contraceptives, etc! ... this is a diverse nation where all citizens have civil rights regardless of religion, etc…
...and this just a thought; the process of milling or manufacturing paper for that bible, newspaper or ad we read has Islamic/Muslim origin…heavens they must have wanted to educate people
The bottom line on anyone paying for contracption when the very best contraception is free to all is what is absolutely absurd. What is that FREE contraception, merely the word “NO”. All anti-abortionists are really pro-choice when you look at it from the concept that when two people chose to engage in a conduct that MAY produce life, the choice is made and the consequences MUST be accepted. You would not willingly stick your finger in a light socket and NOT expect to get shocked would you?
Anne, I think that you lost it a tad. The immorality of the war in Iraq is not contingent upon Biden’s vote. The democrat congress to which you refer has been filabustered by republicans far greater than any time in history. At Boston College my education was based on an insistence to think for myself. The Baltimore catechism or more recently the neo catechism has no part in formal education. Formal education is not indoctrination or simple memory of dictums…thought and critical analysis and readings from primary and secondary sources are, as well as discussion, scrutiny and debating of issues. What I see here is no more than parroting.
The HHS mandate is not forcing the employer to pay for insurance. That insurance is part of the employees benefit package reflecting its salary. It is disingenuous to state that the church is paying for it. In fact the insurance company has assumed the premium on contraceptives, since it is cheaper for them to do so than pay for birth…yet this is continually brought up on this blog in error.
The church remains free to preach as it wishes from its pulpit. It is not free to interfere with the citizens of this country from receiving full benefit of its civil rights. It is also disingenuous to repeatedly state a case that contraceptives are an intrinsic evil, even though the church of today so states. Go no further than the second Vatican council wherein the pontifical commission on birth control was stacked with 16 cardinals and bishops; nine of the sixteen voted not only to relax the restrictions on birth control but to rid them entirely. Thusly, in no manner of speaking can the church claim contraception as an intrinsic evil. Rather, the church should preach to its flock, of which, vastly in excess of ninety per cent use contraception. Finally, your bit on atheists and paying for Bibles and vegetarians paying for burgers is absurd. To become involved in earnest scholarship requires knowledge, in this case, what civil rights are about. In this regard and to which I alluded in tax money paying for an immoral war, much of what we pay for in a pluralistic and diverse society does not reflect personal belief.
I don’t doubt Romney’s concern about religous liberty, but I am deeply worried that the Catholic voter is still seriously misinformed at the seriousness of the HHS mandate. Maybe the bishops need to start running full page ads in the papers, insisting their own editors of dicoesan newspapers sound the call, and get the bishops or spokespeople on these TV talk shows to explain that the poor will be hurt very badly if Catholic institutions are forced to abandon them rather than be complicit in intrinsic evil.
The Obama Administration must feel they are losing the Cahtolic vote and so are lying boldly about the mandate and other issues. The GOP MUST get the word out or could lose the Catholic vote by staying silent.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College - based upon your school, you probably did not recieve a Catholic education - which requires that you have read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in entirety.
Obama through the HHS mandate is forcing all CATHOLIC employers to pay for/purchase insurance that will provide abortafacient drugs, contracption, and voluntary sterilization.
If people want to commit these mortal sins, they should pay for it themselves and not expect all of us taxpayers to do so.
Catholics do not expect atheists to pay for our Bibles.
We do not expect vegetarians to pay for our hamburgers.
So why do all of you expect Catholics to pay for your contraception ?
If you go to ” What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE ” you will find out the real differences between the Democratic PARTY of DEATH platform, and the Republican Platform.
See the answer to the question on voting.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston, if you check the Congressional voting record you will note that Biden lied during his debate - both times he voted FOR the WAR in Iraq and Afganistan. We have been at war all during Obama’s administration.
No one expects Obama to take responsibility prior to his own 4 year term starting in January 2009.
But he must take full responsibilty for everything that has happened under his watch which included two years with a Democratic House and Senate.
There are some negotiables that can not be debated.
ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, FREEDOM of RELIGION.
All Catholic citizens are OBLIGATED to VOTE: CCC 2240.
For links to: “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles” by Cardinal Ratzinger;
A voters guide for serious Catholics;
Where the Candidates stand on key issues;
A comparison of the Democratic & Republican Platforms;
And a short video “TEST of FIRE” on the net search: - - - ” What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE “.
Why does no one bring up the harm the pill does to women in terms of the possibility of blood clots and breast cancer? Why do we not hear of the damage to the environment from the hormones excreted into water systems? Where are environmentalists on this?
It must be noted that the Republican Party’s interest is solely in Wall Street holdings, its stock options, and having a military to protect its financial interests. As a minority party it pays lip service to pro-life, gay unions, climate changes, stem cell research etc…none of which matters to it. But the Republican Party needs its votes to secure election. Romney does not care about replacing Obamacare. It was his program. His sole interest is getting elected.
What is worse is the disingenuous portrait of HHS mandate as contrary to religious freedom. Religious freedom is indeed alive and well in America. Rather, it is the manipulators of religious freedom who are not well…those who cry foul, when their position is one of religious intolerance. No one is forced to use contraceptives. Entering into the secular world of hospitals, charities, housing insists that all employees of those ventures are granted full access to health care rights and their civil rights are equally accessed. Civil rights are never a matter of likes or dislikes, beliefs or disbeliefs. e.g. war in Iraq was immoral, yet our tax money paid for it.
Timmy you need to be reminded that we live in a nation with separation of church and state. The Holy Father doesn’t run the show here in the United States the Congress of the United States does. Get over it already
I know Governor Romney’s response in the debate left a lot to be desired, but after viewing his Al Smith dinner speech, I feel more confident that he affirms and values Catholic positions on life. Plus, whomever wrote that speech has a great sense of humor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzYYyj9QDP4
I’ve been following the US Presidential race from Canada. One thing I can say - it is unfair to read too much into a candidate’s quick responses in debates - these men are under tremendous pressure during these events, and serious time constraints. They are required to speak spontaneously about very serious issues. It is virtually impossible to bring up every ‘proper response’ to every issue, every time. Look at the ‘binders full of women’ line - any educated person who knows the issues and who is not intent on doing a media spin, knows what Mr Romney meant. So too with his remarks re: the HHS mandate and contraception. It is obvious to me that Romney and Ryan have promised protection of religious freedom throughout this campaign, and I don’t this this last debate gave any real cause for doubting that.
Whenever Romney or Ryan get close to actually defining anything the moderators cut them off. That being said, Romney is making a good advance on the electorate and should we succeed in replacing Obamacare the problem will be moot.
What do you expect when you have liberal moderators.
The latest Obama , Romney debate appeared to me to have an advertisment for Planned Parenthood ! I was shocked at how uninformed they appeared. I challenge anyone to try to use a PP facility for a mammogram.Obama made it sound like that is a service provided and if it is it is in a rare outpost somewhere. In New York all I could find, in researching “the good” they do for womens health, was plain old breast exams and “referrals” for mammograms.With millions of “our” government dollars going to this organization the candidates should be better informed.PP central number is 1800 230 7526 ,try to find a pp that offers mammograms. Good Luck.
I am not quite sure why Obama and Sebelius violated the first amendment by attacking Christians who will be forced to decide on the mandate (leave it to your Bishops; listen to them and avoid complicity in sin). Perhaps it is a crude attempt to harass, or an attempt to separate Catholics as a breed apart. In the long term, however, there will be a backlash in the coursts (we are seeing it already). Just have patience and trust in God. Injunctions will be issued; by the time the suits get to the Supreme Court, it will enjoin its execution, then brutally renounce the Chief Executive for what he did. It will happen this way. While we will have to settle for the interim solution (what our bishops tell us), Obama will have to extricate all this from all Obamacare (as suggested by Ruth Bader Ginsburg). This will have a good end. Take heart and trust the Holy Spirit is at the helm. After the court is finished with this, people will forever hesitate to harass religion in any fashion. All lower courts wouldn’t dare to let anything get by them, including hate crimes against Christians.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.