Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Photo
In this Oct. 31, 2011 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is seen in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones.
The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.
The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?
For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones. Religious groups that oppose the regulation say it forces people of faith to choose between upholding church doctrine and serving the broader society.
"It's not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.
Keehan's support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate "has jolted us." She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to "pursue a correction."
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. The regulation includes a religious exemption if an organization qualifies. Under that provision, an employer generally will be considered religious if its main purpose is spreading religious beliefs, and if it largely employs and serves people of the same faith. That means a Catholic parish likely would qualify for a religious exemption; a large church-run soup kitchen probably would not.
Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.
HHS says employers can appeal a decision on whether they qualify for an exemption. But Hannah Smith, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "The mandate vests too much unbridled discretion in the hands of government bureaucrats."
Mandates for birth-control coverage are not entirely new for religious groups. Twenty-eight states already require contraceptive coverage in prescription drug plans. Of those states, 17 offer a range of religious exemptions, while two others provide opt-outs of other kinds. However, opponents of the HHS regulation say there is no state mandate as broad as the new federal rule combined with a religious exemption that is so narrow.
Even in states where the requirement already exists, the issue is far from settled.
Wisconsin's 2009 contraception mandate did not include a religious exemption, but allowed an exception for employers who self-insure. While some dioceses in the state were able to self-insure, others couldn't afford to do so. The Diocese of Madison, Wis., ended up offering a policy with birth-control coverage, but asked employees to follow church teaching and not use the benefit. Local bishops continued to lobby state lawmakers for an exemption. But leaders knew a national health care overhaul was in development and hoped the federal law would be an improvement, said John Huebscher, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's bishops.
In California, whose religious exemption served as the model for the Obama administration, dioceses and some church-run agencies were able to self-insure, said Carol Hogan of the California Catholic Conference, but that option is for the most part unavailable under the federal health care law. Church-run groups could have stopped offering insurance to their employees, but considered that option unfair to workers.
The bishops have responded sharply to the regulation, launching a nationwide campaign against the mandate.
Bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements that were read at Mass last weekend. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement "a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience." Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that "the Obama administration was essentially saying 'to hell with you,' particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience."
The Becket Fund had previously filed two federal lawsuits over the regulations on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts school near Charlotte, N.C., and Colorado Christian University, an evangelical school near Denver. Both challenge the mandate as a violation of several freedoms, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government cannot impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The fine for Belmont Abbey would be more than $300,000 for the first year, and more than $500,000 for Colorado Christian, Smith, the Becket Fund counsel, said.
Many conservatives are also supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a series of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds
For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect Aug. 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises, from profit-making companies to government, will have access to the new coverage starting Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases.
Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.
There is no mandate to cover abortions. But that is little comfort to Catholic leaders, since the regulation violates other church teachings.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the administration will not reconsider the decision.
___
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.
Feb 4, 2012 at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
totellthetruth (I could respond to others but will instead keep going with this conversation), you don't even pretend to reference secular logic. If your arguments have ONLY religious foundations, then you must know that you will never present a case to those with religious views different than yours. I've read enough bio/ethics writings by those who DO present good secular arguments against abortion to know that you can't possibly think the beginning of life is a matter of a "reality check", it is naive to think that your viewpoint is the obvious one.
As for the rest of the issue, having the freedom to make the choice to use birth control is a simple freedom (best summed up by a bumper sticker I once saw, "Don't like gay marriages? don't get one"). It is the duty of employers to allow their employees the option to have coverage for a medicine that is a wonderful, safe route to preventing abortions (yes, increasing access to contraceptives and sexual health education DRASTICALLY reduces numbers of abortions, which I believe everyone is in favor of). The pill has a lot of advantages beyond its contraceptive use, I'd say.
Overall, I'd just say I'm baffled that you think that restricting an employer's right to restrict employees' rights is unjust, that the restriction of rights is the moral one. Appalled, actually. You provide no arguments for your viewpoint being the moral one, only disgusting "analogies" using fear to "convince" others of their wrong viewpoints. I'm in disbelief.
Feb 4, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie: you wrote: "There are also those who the government wants to force to distribute said birth control, whether they want to or not. In other words, there are 2 sets of people here, the birth control users, which the government is not forcing to use birth control (at least not yet anyway), and health care providers, which the government is forcing to distribute regardless of their convictions."
You make it sound like the government is forcing health care providers to go on a door to door birth control distribution campaign. That is not the case.
If you are a health care provider that works anywhere that services people of all religions you are going to deal with people that have different beliefs than you do. These health care providers should not take it as an insult to their religion (or to their beliefs) if their patients want to use birth control. A pharmasist knows that filling prescriptions is part of the job; birth control pills are part of that. If they take the job they know what they are getting in to.
If you believe that good Catholics should take no part in the "distrubution" of birth control then Catholics have a real employment problem. They should not work at any company that makes material that goes into making any form of birth control. They shouldn't work at any factory that actually makes birth control. They shouldn't work for any organization that provides birth control...or that advertises it....or that transports it.....or that prints the information about it...or that hosts websites that contain any reference to birth control. The list can grow depending on your definition of "distribution".
Feb 4, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie, now that you've commented on the unfairness of generalizing the guilt of "some priests abusing children," kindly comment on the fact that your church is guilty of institutionalized child rape.
Make the attempt in such a manner that we can begin to take what you say seriously.
Feb 4, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Realitybytes, you seem to be overlooking the fact that there aren't just birth control users at issue here. There are also those who the government wants to force to distribute said birth control, whether they want to or not. In other words, there are 2 sets of people here, the birth control users, which the government is not forcing to use birth control (at least not yet anyway), and health care providers, which the government is forcing to distribute regardless of their convictions. Both groups are human beings with the same constitutionally protected rights. How can one group's rights be subverted for the benefit of the other's, particularly in light of the fact that birth control is widely available without this new mandate?
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why does everybody seem to be overlooking a very simple fact? The government mandate that even religious groups must offer contraceptive coverage in their health care does NOT force even a single person to actually USE birth control.
Let me repeat: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT FORCING ANYBODY TO GO AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND USE BIRTH CONTROL.
Perhaps the real reason that religious groups are angry is that they are losing another method to control their followers. Religious leaders have long known that religions come and go. One of the ways to kill a religion is to reduce the number of followers to a point that there are not enough followers to teach the next generation. "Gods" teachings have little to do with religious bans on birth control. Large families are simply the best way for religions to gain a captive audience that they can use to continue their religion.
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
So, Gazettefan, what you are saying is that as long as there are enough priests abusing children to exceed whatever standard you set, that the rights of all Catholics can then be trampled due to guilt by association?
Your pathetic bigotry makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
For the most part, I agree with you, Fool_on_the_Hill. However, while I'd agree that if my neighbor has a body odor problem, while I may not care for his smell, I would never support a law that requires the use of deodorants. On the other hand, if my neighbor decides he'd like to kill his wife, I am all in favor of laws that prohibit him from doing so in the hope that his love of his own liberty will deter him from the prospect of losing it by force of those laws even if it doesn't instill respect for his wife's life, which would be the preferred motivation.
I that regard, should my neighbor believe that birth control is wrong, while I may think him mistaken for believing so, I would appose any law that would require him to distribute condoms either directly or indirectly in spite of his convictions, no matter how bizarre I may think they are.
Feb 4, 2012 at 6:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't know about the relevance of the 2nd Amendment but this stretches the limits of the 1st Amendment, if it doesn't stomp all over it. No American should be forced at gunpoint to subsidize the healthcare of any other, especially when that violates other Constitutional principles and protections in the process.
Specific beliefs, in this case those of the Catholic Church, are irrelevant to the issue of liberty. Defending individual liberty does not hinge on whether or not the liberty being infringed is yours. Quite the opposite. Defending your own beliefs and freedoms is meaningless. You understand the concept of liberty only when you understand WHY you are personally responsible for defending the liberty of those who disagree with you. If there is one single trend leading this country toward total collapse from within, it is that way too few Americans care about liberty for anyone but themselves.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good for Obama. I'm completely with him on this one. Do you want to know what is absurd? A health plan backed by a religious organization that won't pay for birth control pills, but will pay for hysterectomy. So a woman, who doesn't want anymore children, but would like a sex life with her husband, has the choice of paying hundreds of dollars a month out of pocket for pills, or having her entire uterus removed and having it covered. That is hateful towards women. It is mired in magical thinking and ideology, and has no place in a modern and enlightened world.
Feb 3, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
You people who think this is ok are very simply part of the problem. Obama and all he's done must go and eleven months is too long to wait. Those of you who think this is ok are welcome to go with him.
Feb 3, 2012 at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
poobah-You're right-I should never post after dialysis-I'm just too tried and can't think.
You to have a good nite.
Feb 3, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forget it, Richard. You're so far off the deep end on this one that it's pointless carrying on. I have no clue how you ended up talking about work rules on an article about contraception... Have a nice evening :-S
Feb 3, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
poobah-So you're saying that's "the most convoluted balderdash" you've ever heard. I guess that must mean that you tell your employer what your pay will be,what hours you'll work,how much vacation you'll have,how many sick days you want blah,blah,blah. The point is the rules have changed. You can quit if you can't deal with it and come back when you can. We all have changes in life we don't like-We change with them and adapt.
Feb 3, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
totellthetruth - Life doesn't start at conception. Life started over 3.5 billion years ago, and has been going ever since.
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
PoorRichard said, "If you want your teacher position or other government job to operate via your rules; don't take government $ or change jobs.
.
Pretty easy to understand."
Easy for you to say, Richard. That's some of the most convoluted balderdash I've ever read.
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
stefffphfhff, let's put that back right. "Obama mandates employers, requiring coverage for non-essential, dangerous, controversial, and unethical procedures." If people can't get that life starts at conception, they need a reality check. This is legislation of politics into religion.
.
If you want to pay for an abortion (an unnecessary termination of life) than by the same measure, you will support a similar plan to euthanize those lower function Down-Syndrome children, those with End Stage Alzheimer's disease, and then next those who are convicted sexual predators.
.
Favorite quote about crossing the line.
.
"When the line of morality is crossed, it is crossed, and it matters not how far you progress, you have crossed into a land of immorality. If you only take one half of a step or take a long stroll deep into the dark forest of deception, you are in a land where your own conscious is in danger. The longer you linger the less obvious the return path becomes, and at some point, you no longer realize that you are in a foreign nation. Then the enemy has you where he wants you. "
Feb 3, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
why_think-Question for you-could you explain the the difference with this and whats going in Wisconsin?
OK, why the outrage?
.
If you want government $ you must follow government rules. If you want your teacher position or other government job to operate via your rules; don't take government $ or change jobs.
.
Pretty easy to understand.
Feb 3, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
OK, why the outrage?
.
If you want government $ you must follow government rules. If you want your hospital or clinic to operate via your rules; don't take government $ or don't operate a facility.
.
Pretty easy to understand.
Feb 3, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'd prefer wording more like "Obama prohibits employers from restricting health care coverage" - putting the negative as though it's the employers that are being hurt, rather than employees being helped, is an obviously biased twist.
Feb 3, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
While reading this article and the posts discussing the points in the article, I am watching "The Dark Ages" on the History Channel.
The common thread running through the period of the Dark Ages is religions development as a social center and authority in lieu of formal government. Most of Christianitys Bible was written and edited in this period.
I respect a persons choice to follow a faith or religious discipline. I consider myself to be a Deist...I believe in God, but I do not practice a given faith.
Adding yet more legislation to our existing laws that suits only a small number of people and is based in a faith not all share or believe in, would be in my opinion a backwards move in a society striving to be progressive.
Feb 3, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ezoner....if by "If the government would worry more about protecting its citizens..." you are refering to the unborn, at least use "pre-citizens." For a group that preaches SMALL government invasion into the lives of citizens, you folks sure like to be inside a woman's uterus and peoples bedrooms an awful lot. In the old days, prior to Tea Bag control of the once great Republican Party, we used to call that hypocrisy.
Feb 3, 2012 at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie, your "some priests abused children" is a horrible understatement of the fact that pedophilia and pederasty are institutionalized elements of your church. How on earth is anything you say supposed to be taken seriously?!
Feb 3, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you're talking about a corporation or LLC, then: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"
Feb 3, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
You people are sooooo right!!! If these ignorant fools won't believe what you believe then they should be forced to act as if they believe what you believe whether they like it or not, regardless of what the second amendment says. After all, women can't get birth control anywhere else, or can they??? Anyway, that's obviously irrelevant. Since some priests have abused children, that's all the justification you need to deny these clods their most basic rights. Now, who's next up for having their rights trampled on your list of second class citizens who have disqualified themselves from human rights considerations due to their outmoded (in your opinion) beliefs and associations?
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cathlic church hates women? Or what is their problem? No one can afford to have a baby a year. Need to take responsiblity here so can have a loving family life with children that are wanted and loved. I would hope all women use birth control no matter what their religious beliefs. If the church dont like it then too bad better change their ways.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Where are "family values" when the church acts out an institutionalized assault on families? It is a fact that the church "dealt" with pedophile priests by transferring them to new parishes without warning future victims and future victims' parents.
There is documented proof that the current pope participated in this assault on family values.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Catholic Church has a great deal of responsibility for the the situation it finds itself in. I admire the consistent stand for family values. I do not admire the consistent stands in favor of socialist economics and wealth redistribution taken by the church. Did the church really believe that conflicts wouldn't arise? When you mix politics and religion, politics will always win. It makes no difference if it is the religious right or the religious left. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services receive the vast majority of their funding from government contracts. They should have expected this.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is the same Catholic church that felt entitled by some imaginary divine right to be above the laws governing child sexual abuse crimes. Theirs is a world of entitlement to perpetuate guilt, hatred and fear.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Believers who are anti-choice are not to be believed. Their stance is nothing more than an attempt to obscure all the harm they've done to children and babies over the centuries. Their stance is also a continuation of their chronic assault on women.
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
What's the problem? If your employees are believers in your church's stand on birth control then they won't ever use this health benefit anyway, right?
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
There is a recently popular refrain that if you don't believe in all the rules of your faith denomination you shouldn't belong to that denomination. If this were followed a very few would belong to any church.
Yes, Catholic women have, will, and do use artificial birth control. I don't know that it is as high as 98% but the number probably tops 50%. At the same time these women support the Church's stand on artificial birth control and don't view it as "governing women's bodies".
If this seems hypocritical to you then you do not understand human nature. We do this all the time in life, advocating against something while at the same time practicing the thing we are against.
We all fall short of the glory of God. That pretty much includes everyone.
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
NV -- If the government would worry more about protecting its citizens opposed to telling them what to do, we would have a far more constitutional government -- as intended by the founders.
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
According to very reliable surveys, 98% of Catholic women have used artificial birth control.
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
We complain about religion in our government but then inject government into our religion. What a sad case. This is Evil, plain evil with a capital O.
Feb 3, 2012 at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
God is going to be mad?
Feb 3, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
If these people would worry more about the body of Christ and less about governing women's bodies, they would be far better off. The 21st century calls.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.