HHS delays, but doesn’t change, contraceptive coverage rule
Instead, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced Jan. 20 that nonprofit groups that do not provide contraceptive coverage because of their religious beliefs will get an additional year "to adapt to this new rule."
"This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty," Sebelius said. "I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."
But Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the Obama administration had "drawn an unprecedented line in the sand" with the decision.
"The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation," he added. "We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision."
Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop Emeritus of Los Angeles, strongly criticized the ruling in a Jan. 20 statement.
“This is a sad moment in the life of our country where religious freedom and freedom of conscience led to the formation of this new Nation under God,” the cardinal said. “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster.”
Cardinal Mahony called upon each candidate running for federal office this year to declare his/her position on all fundamental life issues, “especially the role of government to determine what conscience decision must be followed: either the person's own moral and conscience decision, or that dictated/enforced by the Federal government. For me the answer is clear: we stand with our moral principles and heritage over the centuries, not what a particular Federal government agency determines.”
In his weekly column for The Tidings (see page 2), Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles also criticized the HHS decision. “It is hard not to see this new mandate as a direct attack on Catholic consciences and the freedom of our Catholic institutions,” he wrote. “The mandate does not promote any civil liberties and it does not advance any significant public health goals.”
The archbishop said this is a time for “Catholic action and for Catholic voices. We need lay leaders to step up to their responsibilities for the Church’s mission … to be leaders for moral and civic renewal, leaders in helping to shape the values and moral foundations of America’s future.”
Sebelius announced the mandate and a narrow religious exemption to it Aug. 1, 2011. Under the plan, after Aug. 1 of this year, new or significantly altered health plans will be required to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives, including some that can cause abortions, without co-pays or deductibles as part of preventive health care for women.
The only religious organizations exempt from the requirement would be those meeting four specific criteria --- "(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization" under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
Those sections "refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious orders," according to a footnote to the interim final rule.
Catholic groups, including the USCCB, the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA, called that exemption too narrow, saying it would require Catholic groups to stop all services to those who were not Catholic and would inappropriately involve the government in decisions about whether an organization is "religious enough" to be exempted.
"As it stands, it is unlikely that any Catholic college or university will be exempt," said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
Holy Cross Father John I. Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, described the Obama administration's decision as "profoundly disturbing on many levels" and called for "a national dialogue among religious groups, government and the American people to reaffirm our country's historic respect for freedom of conscience and defense of religious liberty."
Sebelius' announcement brought an outcry from Catholic leaders and a sigh of relief from groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, which had opposed any moves to weaken the contraceptive mandate or strengthen the religious exemption.
In a video posted on the USCCB website, Cardinal-designate Dolan said the decision put the Obama administration "on the wrong side of the Constitution" and should be rescinded.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," the cardinal-designate said in a separate statement. "To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, who chairs the board at Franciscan Alliance, a system of 13 Catholic hospitals, characterized the decision as "nothing else than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights."
Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, said the announcement was a "missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection."
"The challenge that these regulations posed for many groups remains unresolved," she added. "This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic country, which has always respected the role of religions."
Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, said he was "extremely disappointed" that the administration chose to ignore calls from religious institutions to broaden the exemption.
"With the existing restrictive definition in this mandate, the ministry of Jesus Christ himself would not be considered a religious entity," he said.
"Just as the identity of Catholic Charities is firmly rooted in the teaching of its church, the identity of this nation includes a mandated respect of religious beliefs," Father Snyder added. "It is this long-standing history that gave us hope that as a religious institution we would be granted the freedom to remain faithful to our beliefs while also being committed to providing access to quality health care for our 70,000 employees and their families across the country."
Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., who had earlier said he would be forced to stop offering health insurance to his employees if the HHS mandate remained unchanged, said, "The callous disregard for long-held personal and ecclesial beliefs augurs a chilling moment for believing and practicing Catholics in these United States."
"I hope that no Catholic voting adult will soon forget this egregious and insensitive intrusion by our government into our rights of conscience," he added.
But it was not only Catholics who protested the HHS announcement.
"Freedom of conscience is a sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state," said Galen Carey, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals. "No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent."
Even the Washington Post, in a Jan. 22 editorial, called the decision "unproductive can-kicking that fails to address the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith."
"Requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views," the editorial added. "Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it."