Contraception mandate outrages religious groups

[Dave]

As has been noted before, I'm not particularly religious so by no means am I an expert on this subject. From what I've been able to gather from the issue is that within Obamacare, their is a provision that birth control is to be available even in hospitals/clinics that are operated by religious groups. The Catholic church of course has strict beliefs regarding birth control. So this provision leaves the church run hospitals in a bad spot... and of course in a spot that it probably should of never been in in the first place. Oh boy, maybe they should of read through the bill before they made it law... stupid morons.

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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120203/D9SLSUPO0.html

[Willy]

And now it begins. All of you that support Government mandated health care should be reconsidering that support. I can see nothing but tyrannical control over us by the U.S. Government in the disguise of health care. The Government will be telling us how to live, eat, breathe and believe. That's not an exaggeration. We will see a massive loss of freedoms. Obama care is nothing more than an engine to control us. We are in deep crap if we don't get rid of Obama and his radical Democrats and replace them with representatives who support our Constitution. I hope this isn't good by America.

[XLFD]

Is mandating free contraception, sterilization and even some abortifacients more important than the First Amendment, religious liberty and the consciences of Americans?  This is what a one-health-care-for-all policy gets you, mandates totally contrary to the doctrine of "pro-choice".

[Dave]

Good job Obama, alienate your own party members... almost like he's trying to lose the election months before we go to the polls.... not that I'd miss him of course.

Without former Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, President Barack Obama wouldn’t have gotten his health care overhaul in 2010 passed through Congress.

But Stupak, a pro-life Catholic who voted for the health care reform after being promised that federal dollars wouldn’t fund abortions, now isn’t happy with Obama.

Appearing Wednesday night on Fox News, Stupak made clear he opposes the Obama administration’s insistence that religious-affiliated organizations are not exempted from the law’s requirement that health insurance plans cover contraceptives.

“I’m disappointed that the administration would put forth such a rule,” Stupak told host Greta Van Susteren.

The law does allow churches that oppose contraception for religious reasons to be exempt from the law.

Stupak said he hopes the Obama administration changes course on the rule. “I hope we can get the matter resolved short of further action by Congress,” he said.

(RELATED: Full coverage of the Affordable Care Act)

House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday accused Obama from the floor of the House of attacking religious freedom by not exempting religious-affiliated organizations.

Another liberal Catholic who isn’t happy with the new rule is columnist E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post.

In his column, Dionne recently wrote that Obama “utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law.”

“His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice,” he wrote. “In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law.”

http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-catholics-supported-obamacare-now-ups...

[Willy]

Coupled together, the Patriot Act and Obama care could be the start of a Government rule that could mirror the Communist countries we have been fighting for the last 70+ years. U.S. citizens had better wake up before it's to late. But I'm afraid the liberalization of our school children has created a large group of citizens that looks to the Government as their provider, not their employee. I truly think that unless the new generations do not begin to recognize the danger we face from the Government, America will be changing to the America promoted by Obama and the radicals. I heard a news story today that 1 out of every 5 U.S. citizens are completely dependent on the Government for all of their needs. The cost to taxpayers averages around $34,000 dollars a year per recipient. We're in deep sh_t.

[AQUAMAN]

And don't forget what Queen Pelosi said earlier, just sign it, you can read it later. Yeah, right....these are the very people that want to centralize power in the USA to the executive branch. Maybe more will now see what Obama really stands for, not what he says and promises. The Sxxt gets deeper everyday, and few if any seem to notice or care until they themselves are affected, like the Catholics this time. Thankfully, they represent over 20% of the population yet.

[Willy]

What's ironic is the the American Bishops favored the passage of Obama care and now it has come back to bite them. The Bishops don't understand what's going on. They only care that Obama promised them the World and they bought it hook line and sinker just like most of the U.S. voters. Funny how Obama, being the consummate liar, has completely bamboozled the Bishops. Liberalism has invaded the Church  and like a disease will eventually transform it.

[Marty Redman]

This is old news recycled.  Read the Obgynacare law if you want to read 3000 pages of legalese.  Or just see how its done in all the countries with communal health care.  There is no room for religion when the state is God.

[Sweater Cows!]

Just because the organization is religious does not mean the customers they serve are religious.

This" 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." Is the way it should be.

So it is the Customers and workers access to services who should be well and above any ones insurance company's ability to deny those services for any reason, especially religious reasons. If the religious people don't want to provide the service that the client wants then they need to get in a different line of work which fits the description of the exempt organizations.

Places Like Catholic Social Services in Ludington who does all sorts of work does not necessarily have religious people who work there and they definetly don't serve a population of religious people.

If I want to be a Councilor and work there why should I not have access to want I want as an employee that I would have access to if I worked elsewhere?

Most Religious orgs are far from proselytizing the gospel, but arethe way of for profit corps providing a huge array of services to the general public, and the Pres/VP/COO/Board members of these orgs make HUNdreds of thousands a year.

I should be able to work anywhere I choose as a receptionist or councilor or soup ladeler and have equal access to coverage. The religious believers who are my 'bosses' in that case should, Zip there lips and provide what I want whether they like it or not. They should take their religion and bottle it up and save it for their home and there church. these type places are Corporations who make HUGE profits and are just trying to force their archaic ways on there employees. And the employees who happen to be religious? Well, they don't have to use the services. But as an employee I want my access, why should I have to find a different job to have coverage equal to those in the non-religious corporate business when these businesses are corporate business themselves.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Can I get a AMEN!!!!!!

[XLFD]

The point is well made, Whenwill, and the left side of my body would dare say "Amen", except that when I try to view it from the left side of things I keep on running into a nagging old conundrum that the left loves to bring forth when it suits them, and that is the 'separation of church and state' . 

How can the government mandate religious groups to do something they find that goes against the core beliefs of their religion, without civil liberties being compromised? 

[Mary G]

Question.....Is it your civil right to have this job  for no other reason then you need a job, they have an opening, you applied ergo the job is yours. In accepting this job the employer then has to meet all your demands in order for them to be able to hire you.  Something is wrong with your picture.  You are missing the bigger picture.  This is a power grab by our government, plain and simple !   I don't know how old most of the posters on this site are but you all should be very very cautious of how much power you are giving to this administration and future administrations. It is your world and your life but you all need to delve into the shadow government that is running this country and for that matter the world. 

[Willy]

When
Whether the customers are religious or not is not the point. Your accepting the argument that the Government can define what "religion" or "church" is. They don't have that power under the Constitution. And your conclusion is backwards. It's not up to the Religious groups to "get in line", it's up to people to believe and accept a religious groups philosophy and to "get in line" with it's teaching or seek another organization that best fits their beliefs. No woman is denied contraception. Women can buy it on their  own. Some women just want someone else to pay for it. I notice your post is full of "I want"  which indicates an entitlement mentality. It's not your right or the Governments right to dictate what a religious organization should believe and how it should practice and apply that belief. If you haven't noticed this is not about providing women with free contraception, it is about undermining the Constitution. This is a slippery slope that is leading to the erosion of all Americans freedoms but folks like you only see the "I want" and "give me" and "I'm entitled" side of the equation.