HHS "ABC" Rule: Anybody But Catholics Has Religion Freedom

Health and Human Services' recent attacks on freedom of religion show it is deaf to religious sensibilities. Even the Administration's resounding defeat on Jan. 11 when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the its reading of the First Amendment as "extreme," "untenable" and having "no merit," it couldn't unplug its ears.

The Court held in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC that the government could not meddle in the internal affairs of religious organizations, in this case, a Lutheran church and school. Yet nine days later, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would force all but a few religious organizations to violate their own teachings in providing health care benefits to their own people. Specifically, the government has ordered virtually all employers -- nationwide -- to sponsor and subsidize health care coverage of sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, for their employees. And it gave church employers a year to get in line.

The First Amendment unambiguously says that government "shall make no law" prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that some laws trampling free exercise are fine. It says no law.

Yet, nine days after the Hosanna-Tabor decision, on Jan. 20, HHS announced its decision to keep in place the frightening mandate in the health care law, with barely the slightest nod to religious concerns. HHS holds to the absurd rule it announced last Aug., that church ministries get a religious exemption only if they employ and serve primarily co-religionists.

Must Catholic hospitals, to be true to their identity, now turn away people of other faiths from their emergency rooms and fire non-Catholic employees? Currently, Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care in our country. Must Catholic Charities hire and serve only Catholics in its food pantries and other social service agencies? Until today, you didn't need a baptismal certificate for soup.

This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences. Some claim this is all about access to contraceptives -- but everyone knows how and where to get them, and get them cheaply. And the mandate also forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. This is about forcing the church to pay for all these things through insurance coverage, to sponsor these "benefits" that it considers immoral. This is, in other words, about freedom of religion, which is a foundation stone of U.S. democracy.

The government allows other religions to live out their beliefs. The Amish have a conscientious objection to health insurance, and so the law exempts them from buying it. The government acknowledges their right to live out their religious conviction in U.S. society. Why are beliefs of Catholics and others dismissed?

Some months ago HHS refused to award an anti-trafficking grant to the U.S. Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services (MRS). It did so despite MRS's scoring higher on an objective scale (according to the government's independent advisors evaluating grant applications) than two of the three organizations that were awarded grants. (And two of those scored so low that they were deemed unqualified.) I suggested then that HHS had an ABC rule, "Anybody But Catholics." Now I wonder if ABC isn't also the answer to who gets freedom of religion.

CORRECTION: This post originally said that Christian Scientists, in addition to the Amish, have a government-recognized conscientious objection to health insurance. This is not the case.

 

Follow Sister Mary Ann Walsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/USCCB

Comments

[notsostimulated]

09:53 PM on 03/19/2012

Interestingly, my reply to a comment was never posted and the comment itself has disappeared. I must have I hit a nerve. I will repeat my statement here. The original post used the new narrowed definition of church, minister, and ministry in the healthcare law to argue against the Church. I simply thanked the poster for bringing to light an important issue being overlooked. It is crucial because it sets a precedent for the government to take control of everything outside of the church building itself. It is a huge power grab by the government.

[notsostimulated]

12:40 PM on 03/19/2012

This administration has exempted hundreds of organizations from complying with the new Healthcare mandates. But when it came to the Catholics, they said, "No exemption for you." Why the discrimination?

[tuningspoon]

10:59 PM on 02/22/2012

I was surprised when I was reading this, because having read up on this issue, a lot of information is missing. For example, the requirement to provide healthcare would apply to Catholic run educational and healthcare organizations, but not actual churches. And in talking with a former priest work with, he explained that the Supreme Court decision had to take into account that the teacher was officially employed as a "minister" and that religious institutions have **enormous** leeway in regards to people considered to be their ministers - at some point, the teacher may have even taught religious classes to kids. But professors and healthcare workers aren't employed as ministers, and they don't generally work for local Churches. I can't speak for the intentions of the writer, but it certainly felt highly biased, if not misleading. As a practicing, moderate Catholic, I support giving the choice to women on how they will use preventative care options to take care of their health and bodies.

[Pericles11]

02:54 PM on 02/07/2012

Sorry Sister,
Bit it serves you Catholics right for Supporting Obama in the first place,his opposition to teh Born Alive Infant Protection Act was well known,yet a majority of Catholics voted for him. (And will do so again in NOv) WHat did you expect????

[notsostimulated]

12:27 PM on 03/19/2012

Sadly, you are right. The Catholic Bishops brought this on themselves. Now it is up to the real Catholics to make up for their ineptitude.

[Leanne McKenzie]

05:47 PM on 02/06/2012

I have found the source of the statistics that 98 % of Catholic women use birth control. Apparently this isn't new or shocking. Which is why I suppose, that many catholic families have only 23 or 3 kids.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/06/cecilia-munoz/white-house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/

[notsostimulated]

12:29 PM on 03/19/2012

This is not about birth control. It is about control and it is just the tip of the iceberg. The next step is to mandate that Catholic hospitals perform abortions and to mandate that Catholic Adoption agencies offer abortion as an alternative to adoption.

[Anya Khan]

11:00 AM on 02/05/2012

The Obama administration's attack on the Catholic church continues against Catholic Relief Services. "Contrary to conscience protections that are already a matter of law, Catholic Relief Services and Migration Refugee Services were told that a new condition for the renewal of cooperative agreements was the provision of offering a full-range of so-called reproductive services

[MightyYowp]

10:20 PM on 02/02/2012

So HMO'c can deny someone a life saving perscription or cancer treatment but the current admin is cool with that but they force the RCC to provide a (usually) elective drug to people w/o even a copay? How is that fair?

[Anya Khan]

08:52 AM on 02/06/2012

According to the president, yes. It is a sad turn of event that President Obama would rather close charity hospitals than have Catholic run them

[SirGigglehead]

12:31 AM on 02/01/2012

Really, Sister, I recognize that the RCC has long admired martyrdom, but your hyperbolic assertion that anyone but catholics has freedom of religion in this nation is something that you, as a person professing to be searching for veritas, or the truth, would be blushing to have published. Your church doors are open and your parishioners are free to enter whenever they want, to pray as they please, and to follow the dictates of their consciences within their own personal lives. What you fail to consider, and even worse, what the Conference of Bishops fails to honor, is that your church hides behind the 1st Amendment when it is convenient for them but wants to enter the political--read: secular--arena and dictate to the rest of us how we must live our lives. That is a usurpation of my right to freedom of conscience, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, that I will not abide and will be willing to oppose the church on with everything within my power.
What is egregious is that the church you bear allegiance to has no respect for anyone who dares disagree with it.

[WBCC]

08:23 AM on 01/30/2012

"This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences."

Last I checked, religious tax resisters still go to jail for refusing to "ante up" for war.

[jimbo57]

09:21 PM on 01/29/2012

How faithful are American Catholics to Church doctrine on contraception in their daily lives? More to the point, should a religious organization's objections to certain medical services or procedures be sufficient to deprive people of access to them? Would we allow Jehovah's Witnesses to run hospitals where people couldn't get blood transfusions?

[SparkiSays]

12:58 PM on 01/30/2012

If the JW wanted to start their own private hospitals without blood transfusions, nobody would stop them. Of course, only other JW would go to such hospitals. This is an entirely different issue (freedom of commerce) than what is going on with Catholic institutions (freedom of religion). Catholic hospitals have always served anybody who needs help, no matter what their religion, and Catholic hospitals have frequently been on the forefront of treatment (sometime Google Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital, which pioneered rehab therapy for stroke victims). Most of the hospitals in the U.S. started out as Catholic institutions. Many of the service programs that help the poor and underemployed in this country are Catholic as well. Hundreds of thousands of students attend Catholic schools in every part of the country. The Church also helps with refugee resettlement for people fleeing oppression in their own homelands, including victims of human trafficking. If the fed. gov't shuts down every Catholic institution in the country because we don't care to violate our religious beliefs as we serve the public, who is going to pick up the slack? Tax payers, if the gov't can ever get around to creating the infrastructure of human services that the Catholic Church already has in place. You ready for that? I guarantee you, the federal and state governments are not.

[Pericles11]

02:56 PM on 02/07/2012

YES,

[charlesrfd2003]

06:18 PM on 01/29/2012

This line of thinking would mean the Jehovah Witness employers would not have to support blood transfusions. That line of thinking leads to absurdity with no basic benefits.

[dietzer1989]

10:37 PM on 01/30/2012

It's as simple as, "If you want blood transfusions covered, work for someone else." Same case here. Want free bc? Work for someone who will get it for you.

[ruthsdaughter]

08:43 PM on 03/15/2012

this line of thinking doesn't LEAD to absurdity. It starts at absurd.
a blood transfusion is medically necessary to save a life.
Birth control pills are to prevent pregnancy. A healthy condition.
And before you start in about them being used to treat disease, guess what, Catholics don't have a problem with their use for that purpose. Even at Georgetown.

[charlesrfd2003]

04:26 PM on 01/29/2012

The bishops not going to get the exemption they want since it would open Pandora's box to everyone wanting exemptions so there would not be any heath plan.

Some bishops are saying they will disobey the law. When the bishop tries to get an insurance contract that excludes contraceptives, no insurer will accept that since the insurer could be forced to pay the claims anyway and then would not have premiums paid to support those claims. Insurers will not take that risk.

Already Catholic Healthcare West, a company with 36 hospitals in Nevada, California and Arizona, cut their ties with the bishops just this week. The company changed their name to Dignity Health. I find this ironic since there is an other organization called Dignity that the bishops have tried to suppress.

[Mikdow]

10:20 AM on 01/30/2012

I visited a Catholic Healthcare West emergency room where I was left to wait until the last person was seen (several hours). Then I asked the receptionist when I would be seen. She was so sorry I was forgotten about.

[Mystical Rose]

02:17 PM on 01/29/2012

"Yet nine days later, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would force all but a few religious organizations to violate their own teachings in providing health care benefits to their own people. Specifically, the government has ordered virtually all employers -- nationwide -- to sponsor and subsidize health care coverage of sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, for their employees. And it gave church employers a year to get in line.

The First Amendment unambiguously says that government "shall make no law" prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that some laws trampling free exercise are fine. It says no law."

The government should support Catholics decisions to not want contraceptions and abortions to be covered on their healthcare plan. Just as how the government supports the Amish to live the way they want in regards to their religion, the government should do the same for Catholics as well. We shouldn't have coverage for contraceptions and abortions if we don't want it.

[iamone3]

01:44 AM on 01/30/2012

The government has overstepped it`s boundaries.

[Mystical Rose]

08:19 PM on 01/31/2012

I agree in this case.

[Shozen]

06:48 AM on 01/29/2012

Just because the government mandates contraceptives in health care plans doesn't mean good Catholic girls and boys are forced to use them.

[mrsL]

04:16 PM on 01/29/2012

but it means that Catholic employers i.e. Catholic hospitals and even the different diocese themselves, will be mandated to provide that type of coverage AND their employees, including their Catholic employees will be forced to accept them.

[iamone3]

01:46 AM on 01/30/2012

And pay for them.

[Mikdow]

08:13 PM on 01/30/2012

We live in a secular society. If you want to adhere to ancient beliefs that is your choice. I can choose otherwise if I wish.

My pagan beliefs are not a legal reason to withhold my tax payments, even though the money will be used to wage war, and so the Catholic belief that a soul begins with conception is not a legal reason to withhold certain kinds of medical just because Catholics think them sinful.

In fact, it's not ethical and it flies in the face of the teachings of Joshua ben Joseph.

What the Catholic church doesn't seem able to accept is that all religions are equal in the eyes of the law.

[RD2007]

11:37 PM on 01/28/2012

What am I missing here? Health insurance is a form of compensation that an employer provides to a worker, just like a paycheck. If a worker uses church purchased health insurance to get contraception it somehow violates the church's ethics; but if the church provides the worker with funds via their paycheck to purchase contraception, it doesn't? Sorry sister, it just doesn't add up.

[mrsL]

04:18 PM on 01/29/2012

Sure it does. The Catholic employer doesn't follow every one around and mandate how they spend their pay checks. And the Catholic employer has a choice of what type of health care coverage it wants to provide. But HHS is saying that Catholic employers MUST provide coverage for contraception and abortion AND that the Catholic employees must accept that coverage. It is a violation of rights.

[RD2007]

05:46 PM on 01/29/2012

But is does not say that they have to USE the coverage. It's there for those who choose not to follow the church's policies. And that doesn't change the fact that if I use X number of $'s in health care coverage or X number of $'s out of my paycheck to purchase my contraceptives, in both cases it is the church that is providing those funds. If they don't mandate how I spend my paycheck funds, why should they be able to mandate how I use my health coverage funds?