Home » Posts tagged 'Affordable Care Act'

U.S. bishops’ find new rules on contraceptive mandate still violate religious freedom

By

WASHINGTON — New proposed regulations governing the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act continue to violate basic principles of religious freedom, said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In comments filed March 20 with the Department of Health and Human Services, the USCCB raised a series of concerns, among them being that the new proposals keep in place “an unjust and unlawful mandate” regarding the provision of contraceptive and other pregnancy services and that the rules provide no exemption, or accommodation, for “most stakeholders in the health insurance process, such as individual employees and for-profit employers,” who are morally opposed to such coverage. Read more »

Comments Off

New federal rules on insurance coverage for contraceptives fall short, Cardinal Dolan says — updated

By

(The story has been updated with comments from Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago.)

WASHINGTON — The new proposed rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding insurance coverage of contraceptives show movement but fall short of addressing the U.S. bishops’ concerns, New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan said in a Feb. 7 statement.

The cardinal, who is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the 80-page document released Feb. 1 by HHS concerning the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act indicates that the administration “seeks to offer a response to serious matters which have been raised throughout the past year.”

— The new proposed rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding insurance coverage of contraceptives show movement but fall short of addressing the U.S. bishops’ concerns, New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan said in a Feb. 7 statement. (CNS)

He also noted that the bishops “look forward to engaging with the administration, and all branches and levels of government, to continue to address serious issues that remain. Our efforts will require additional, careful study.”

The rules are open for a 60-day comment period and are expected to be finalized this summer.

After evaluating the proposed rules, Cardinal Dolan said in the statement that the bishops continue to stand by the statement on the HHS mandate issued by their administrative committee last March and affirmed by the entire body of bishops last June.

In that statement, he said, the bishops expressed concern over the mandate’s “exceedingly narrow” four-part definition of “religious employer,” one that exempted houses of worship, but left “our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need” subject to the mandate.

Such a distinction, they said, created a “second class of citizenship within our religious community,” and weakened the federal law’s “healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.”

The cardinal credited the administration for proposing to drop the first three parts of the four-part test, which he said might address some of the bishops concerns but not all.

An HHS spokeswoman said Feb. 1 no nonprofit religious institution — including churches, universities, hospitals and charities — will have to “arrange, contract, pay for or refer for” contraception insurance for employees or students who want it.

Cardinal Dolan faulted the proposed rules for maintaining an “inaccurate distinction among religious ministries,” noting that HHS “offers what it calls an accommodation, rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”

He also said the proposed rules seem to “take away something that we had previously, the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.”

The cardinal also noted that the government would require all employees of “accommodated” ministries in religious institutions to have access to contraception coverage, noting that they “may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children.”

According to HHS, even in the case of self-insured religious entities, which includes many dioceses and colleges, employees or insured students who want contraceptive coverage will be able to arrange it through outside insurance companies, at no cost to themselves and without financial or even administrative support of the faith-based institution.

Cardinal Dolan said “gaps in the proposed regulations” make it unclear “how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies.”

This lack of clarity, he said, provides “the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities” which the bishops would like to see changed in the final rule.

The cardinal also expressed concern that the HHS mandate “creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all” such as “employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it.”

He said the proposed rule confirms that HHS “has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all” to this group.

The new proposed rules specify that no exemption will be given to “for-profit, secular employers.”

Cardinal Dolan noted that during the past year, the bishops have been assured by the administration that they will “not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage” and they “remain eager for the administration to fulfill that pledge.”

“We will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks,” he said.

He also noted that the bishops take seriously the invitation to submit concerns during the comments period and said they will “do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all.”

“At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary,” he added.

Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, attending the plenary meeting of the Pontifical Council for Culture at the Vatican, spoke to Catholic News Service in Rome Feb. 7 before the release of the bishops’ statement on the new HHS proposed rules.

He said that although the rules expand the “number of institutions that might be accommodated” by them, unresolved issues remain.

Still at stake, he said, is the “government taking upon itself the definition to decide what is religious and what is not,” which he said is a constitutional issue “that must go forward.”

He also said the issue of institutional and individual conscience needs to be further resolved and pointed out that the contraceptive mandate could lead to further requirements such as coverage of medications for assisted suicide or male vasectomies.

The cardinal said he is also troubled that a “right to free contraception” is being portrayed as a “constitutional right.”

He called it “bad precedent” if Catholic and other church entities have to bargain with a “constitutional right to freedom of religion in order to see where we’re going to go.”

Cardinal George said the bishops’ conversation with the Obama administration will continue and “it’s important that it do so.” The final resolution, he added, will “probably be with the courts.”

To date, 44 lawsuits have been filed against the HHS’s contraceptive mandate, 15 by for-profit businesses and 29 by nonprofits groups such as Christian hospitals, universities and charities.

According to the website of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Catholic and other religious institutions in a number of the lawsuits, 14 for-profit plaintiffs that have obtained rulings touching on the merits of their claims against the mandate and 11 have secured injunctive relief against it.

In developments on some of the other lawsuits, a federal judge Jan. 22 dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Diocese of Erie, Pa., calling it premature, because the HHS rules for the contraceptive coverage have not been finalized. But he dismissed the case “without prejudice,” which means the diocese can bring the case back to court.

In December, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the lawsuit mandate filed by the Archdiocese of New York and two other Catholic entities can move forward. Catholic dioceses and other plaintiffs whose cases have been dismissed are appealing those decisions.

 

Comments Off

High court upholds health law, bishops urge Congress to fix ‘fundamental flaws’

By

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28 decision upholding the health reform law makes it even more urgent for Congress to act to fix the law’s “fundamental flaws” on abortion funding, conscience protection and immigrants’ access to health care, the U.S. bishops said.

The court found that although the individual mandate in the 2010 health reform law does not pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it can be upheld as an acceptable exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. Read more »

Comments Off

Religious freedom issues at heart of HHS lawsuits, legal scholars say

By

Catholic News Service

LEVITTOWN, Pa. — The mass media have done the public a disservice by consistently referring to health reform law regulations so narrowly as the “contraceptive mandate,” because it leads people to think the regulations are a matter of interest only to Catholics, according to Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon.

Rather, she said, the regulations that would require employers to provide free health insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilizations are a contravention of religious freedom, “and that’s everybody’s business.”

Legal experts interviewed by Catholic News Service said the lawsuits filed May 21 by 43 Catholic entities in 12 federal district courts, as well as those filed separately by other organizations and concerned individual employers, are based on three principles.

The first is the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Helen Alvare, a law professor at George Mason University in the Washington suburb of Arlington, Va., said the Supreme Court has ruled that statutes may breach religious freedom if a law is neutral with regard to religion and of general applicability, that is, applied across the board without exemptions.

But, she said, the Department of Health and Human Services regulations to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contain numerous exemptions affecting thousands of people — unions, for example, and grandfathered programs — and so cannot be considered generally applied.

A second reason cited for the lawsuits is the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law says that if the government is going to place a substantial burden on religious practice, the government must have a compelling interest to do so and must use the least restrictive means available.

The HHS regulations do not meet that test, the scholars agreed.

Finally, enforcing the regulations’ narrow definition of religiously exempt entities would, Glendon said, require a searching government inquiry into what is and isn’t religious activity, “intruding into religious affairs in an unprecedented way.”

To be exempt, the religious employer must meet four criteria, that it “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”; primarily employs people “who share its religious tenets”; primarily serves people “who share its religious tenets”; and is a nonprofit organization under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

Alvare said she thinks the case being made in the lawsuits is really strong but expects that however district courts rule the matter is likely to be appealed to higher courts, unless the Supreme Court rules the whole health Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in a case currently under consideration.

Richard Garnett, professor of law and associate dean at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said that with respect to the district court suits filed by various Catholic entities, it is entirely possible that there will be different decisions in different jurisdictions.

He said that at least some of the plaintiffs will probably be successful, and in those cases the court may issue an injunction on enforcement of the HHS regulations within the area of the court’s jurisdiction.

Garnett also said the Obama administration may just decide to change the regulations.

The Catholic Health Association, which has not joined in any of the lawsuits, told CNS its only statement on the lawsuits could be found in a May 21 blog post by E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post. In it, Michael Rodgers, CHA senior vice president for public affairs and advocacy, was quoted as saying in an interview that the association “was not made aware that lawsuits were being filed now.”

Rodgers is quoted as adding that CHA is working with the administration to “broaden the exemption by broadening the definition of what a religious institution is.”

Comments Off
Marquee Powered By Know How Media.