iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Contraception Mandate Outrages Conservative Religious Groups

Contraception Mandate

By RACHEL ZOLL   02/ 3/12 07:13 AM ET  AP

-- 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.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

-- 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 bel...
-- 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 bel...
Filed by Paul Brandeis Raushenbush  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,700
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (38 total)
02:54 AM on 02/11/2012
Feminists seem to think that the right to an abortion and birth control implies that other people have to pay for it. It DOESN'T. The Supreme Court made that clear. So stop acting like the Catholic Church is depriving you of your rights; they AREN'T.
02:43 AM on 02/11/2012
Keep the government out of religion as much as possible.
02:43 AM on 02/11/2012
I'm glad that Obama has made a compromise. The Catholic Church, which has run hospitals for a very long time, should have the right to follow its collective conscience on an issue like this. All of you saying that the Catholic Church should just get out of the healthcare "business" (They're a nonprofit organization.) if they want to follow their conscience, are nuts. The Catholic Church believes that providing healthcare and education is doing the Lord's work. You're putting them between a rock and a hard place by making them choose between helping the community and following their conscience.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eschenk718
04:57 PM on 02/08/2012
I am a Catholic. I was baptized a Catholic at two weeks of age. I am now 75 years old. Enough already. I lived in a time when there was no practical birth control. When it came out, women of all denominations rushed to purchase it. I do not know of one Catholic friend or relative who is of child bearing age and married who has not practiced birth control at sometime in their life. This is again religion being run by men and in the Catholic Church, men who have no dog in the hunt. They cannot get married and have a normal healthy relationship with a woman.(That is a discussion for another time) I know of no Catholic women where this is even an issue. They just ignore that part of the Church, they don't confess it, they just act like it is of no consequence. Abortion I can understand but to deny birth control which would stop abortion is beyond me. I do not know how these men in their fancy robes can mix the two. Don't practice birth control, get pregnant, don't have an abortion and please, please, don't come knocking on our door for help.
02:39 AM on 02/11/2012
The Catholic Church believes that sex is for procreation. That's why they oppose birth control.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
mary1265
Most pessimistic optimist
02:26 PM on 02/08/2012
The Catholic Church castrated young boys in the 17th and 18th centuries so they could sing alto in the opera. Because the bible said you are to keep women silent in the churches because it is not permiitted that they speak. This is their attitude towards women and children.

http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-castrati.html
02:45 AM on 02/11/2012
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that that's not their attitude today. What's the point of bringing up stuff that happened a long time ago?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:08 PM on 02/08/2012
so like ah... whats the big deal? I mean viagra is covered... why not birth control
02:45 AM on 02/11/2012
The use of Viagra doesn't violate any of the Catholic Church's teachings; that's the difference.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hufrelief
All of you matter
11:22 AM on 02/08/2012
Our women should be able to feel a little more secure in their walk of life and reproduction. Why? They are all human just like the rest of us, and they can and do make mistakes, and choices they are and are willing to live with. Is it complex? Of course it is. Since their duty is very important to the reproduction of life, they should have all the options available to them to make sound decisions, and they should not be penalized for their choices when they make them. The Church should offer contraception coverage to workers that work for them, if they request it, but the government should not be setting a mandate before thoroughly traveling the road of solutions to a well thoughtful and balanced compromise. Everyone should be acting like they have since, and not be clinging to their spoiled positions on both sides. What about the care, safety, and comfort of the individual that is seeking contraceptive coverage. No one should be forcing their rights, beliefs, or positions on them first of all. If they need coverage, it should be provided for them to make the choice. Offering that choice to others should not make me less of a man, nor a believer in my faith. Righteousness, balance, caring, and understanding is key for everyone. Not spoiled political and religious positions being forced on others, who only are looking for coverage and piece of mind while they work. Is that too much really?
02:47 AM on 02/11/2012
Stop forcing your views on religious organizations. It works both ways. If women want birth control, they should pay the cost of being insured for birth control if birth control violates their employers' conscience.
10:08 AM on 02/08/2012
Why is anyone surprised at the Obama's administration stepping on religious rights? They have been overreaching on so many things in the three years that this is what we non-Obama admirers expected. We could see it coming a mile away.

I really feel sorry for the Catholics and other people who went to bat for him on Obamacare because they assumed that their religious beliefs would be respected. The joke's on them!

In November, however, it is time to vote him out because this is just the start of his unconstitutional mandates imposed on all people and institutions. It is a tyranny. Wise up, guys!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eschenk718
05:05 PM on 02/08/2012
Not this Catholic. To vote for a Republican would be voting against the best interest of the middle class. Nor on my agenda. The Republicans have been trying to push their social issues down our throats and do not want to cover the cost of the consequences. When these young girls have babies because they chose not to have an abortion and had no money for contraception, these same Republicans say you made your bed, now lie in it. They complain about any money for food stamps, hospital care., you name it. If it is for the poor they shut the door in your face and then have the nerve to call themselves Christians. They only go as far as the birth and then you are on your own.
02:48 AM on 02/11/2012
That's not true at all. How are people "on their own" after birth?

Republicans are not against birth control, just against forcing religious organizations which oppose it to cover it. Sheesh.

Your post is full of hyperbole.
09:50 AM on 02/08/2012
The republican party has continued to go after women's health and want control over your body. I am so saddened by the lack of resistant from women for the past three years. We should be screaming from the roof tops: LEAVE OUR BODIES OUT OF YOUR POLITICS!
10:46 AM on 02/08/2012
Women's health? Since when is pregnancy a disease?
12:50 PM on 02/09/2012
Never a disease and never your business.
09:44 AM on 02/08/2012
It was amazing to watch coverage of this on the news yesterday. All these Catholic men talking about the rights of religion. MEN. All talking about offending the church that no one listens to. You have Catholic church goers having sex before marriage, committing adultry, and using contraception. Is the the church's "religious freedom" more important than the right of women to have control of their bodies?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
guamote
12:33 AM on 02/09/2012
Religious freedom is more important because in this instance there's more at stake than women's bodies. As many have already pointed out 98% of Catholic women are already using some form of birth control. That is their choice. They clearly know the doctrine of their church, but have chosen to ignore it. At the very least the Catholic church can be faulted that they've done a poor job of teaching parishners the importance of their doctrine.

The church affiliates are asked to pay for contraception. Notice a crucial noun here? Employees. They have a job and medical insurance. Being employed they can pay for their own. Employees who aren't Catholic, no doubt they had to agree to work requirements before being hired. If they disagreed, find another job. It's like nurses refusing to get immunizations before working.

The larger issue here is the usurping religious freedom. Anyone that accepts employment at a Catholic church, hospital or university knows who they are working for. Some Catholic Universities and Hospitals may have lapsed into a more secular mindset, but at their core they are still a Catholic entity. In no time, government will have no problem telling religious groups what they can't preach.

Enough about the protection of women's bodies already. Women have plenty of rights and options available. Want free birth control, go to Planned Parenthood. You're fighting the wrong fight people. The fight is the right to practice one's faith as it states in our Constitution.
12:46 PM on 02/09/2012
spoken like a true mail with no reproductive organs
01:24 PM on 02/10/2012
Yes, you are definitely a man. Oh and by the way Planned Parenthood is being scorned for helping with contraceptives (and abortions). If you overly religious people have your way no women would ever have the choice to have them. We'll be back in the 17th 18th hundreds where women could not sing in churches because the bible said we couldn't speak... so they castrated young boys. Oh and husbands could beat their wives if the stick was the size of their thumb or smaller!! The insanity of people amazes me!
09:34 AM on 02/08/2012
There are seventy-seven million Catholics in the United States. In 2008, BO got 52% of their voting power. Unlikely in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
speedy evans
08:27 AM on 02/08/2012
females in the church need to take back the control of there own wombs
02:51 AM on 02/11/2012
Nobody's saying you can't. Just pay for it yourself.
photo
ohiomark
Rush Geek
08:16 AM on 02/08/2012
What happened to the so called separation of church and state?

It's not OK to put a nativity scene on the front lawn of city hall, but it's perfectly OK for the Federal Government to impose contracept­ives and "morning after" pills on religious intistutio­ns that don't believe in them?

This is just another reason why Obamacare will be ruled unconstitu­tional.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:10 AM on 02/08/2012
So, do church-affiliated employers investigate whether male employees applying for coverage for Viagra or other ED treatments are married? Do they require the employees to state that they will only use the ED treatments with their wives?

I'm serious. What are the current provisions of their health-care plans in those cases? Because, if the Catholic church opposes premarital and extramarital sex, and if they believe that church-affiliated employers should not provide coverage for medical treatments that the church does not approve of, then they should, if they are consistent, refuse to provide coverage for ED treatments for single men, or for men who are using the medications to facilitate sex with anyone other than their wives.

So, what's their position on this?

Or are they only concerned with women's behavior?
02:58 AM on 02/11/2012
sierraseven, I can think of one procedure done on men that the Catholic Church would oppose on moral grounds: the vasectomy. The Catholic Church says that sex is for procreation, so getting a vasectomy would violate their teachings. My guess is that they refuse to cover that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cosmosdan
07:38 AM on 02/08/2012
I think a simple out for the church would be to look at the money they use to purchase insurance as the same as wages. You can't control what your employee chooses to do with their wages , nor should you. Then why try to control the choices available to them in thier benefits compensation.
The church isn't directly buying brith control for anyone. They are buying an insurance package and the employee chooses what to do with it.
They are creating this issue in thier own minds by how they choose to pecieve the situation. Change your perception, to insurance package =wages and the problem is solved, Aside from that, this arcane belief needs to go. Their own members ignore it. It's ridiculous.
03:14 AM on 02/11/2012
You lost on this issue; Obama backed down. The Church can opt out of paying for birth control, and the Church will never change its position simply because its own members ignore it. That's not how they work.
The money used to purchase insurance isn't the same as wages, though. It's coming out of the Church's pocket, not the employee's pocket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cosmosdan
06:57 AM on 02/11/2012
He's offered an accomidation that still provides for women , which was the point all along. Some are still complaining about it.
That may not be how the church works but I'm glad this idiotic belief got a lot of publicity.
It's coming out of the insurance companies picket not the church's pocket. They pay the insurance company for insurance coverage period. They do not write a check for contraceptives. They created unnessecary outrage simply by refusing to shift thier perception , over a foolish arcane beleif they know thier own members ignore. Yeah that's some religious conscience alright. They have the ability to examine , reconsider , and alter the church's position and doctrine, as they've done in the past. It's about time they snapped out of it and joined the 21st century.