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

[easymoney]

I have no idea of how old Mary is, but, I do know how old I am. This so-called younger generation has no idea of how many rights they have already lost.

And since when does the employee tell the employer what he wants or deserves?

[Sweater Cows!]

Since somebody invented unions and employee rights that are greater than that of the employers.

[Sweater Cows!]

easy, I was going to say I do know how many rights we lost, thanks to all the boomers who elected Bush and supported the PATRIOT ACT. that piece of garbage undid most of our rights. Of course I according to my 10 yr old I am 'old and don't know about kids these days' lol!!! But being a genX-er I can't be one of the kids anymore or part of the 'younger' generation!

As far as whther or not the gov't can say whether an org is religious or not? They have been making those distinctions for years.

Again Taking CSS(catholic social services as an example). When we see in the paper that someone has been required to go for a substance abuse exam where do they go to pay $125.00, do they go to their church or a private councilor? No they go to CSS. That is a business whether incorporated for IRS purposes as 501c-3 or not.

And since people are forced(in our county it is the only court approved choice now days I believe) to use those services in a business fashion why should they be considered a religious org? Because the founders or board members believe a certain way? This is a nationwide corporation that is far from charitable if you look at there prices, they are not out there preaching the gospel, they are in the market to make money!!

And since they are a nationwide employer in a profit making market(not a small local religious group who the workers are there to promote religion), the people that work there have the right to be free of the founders religion and belief system.

[Willy]

When
I agree with you about the baby boomers and the Patriot Act. Don't forget OBama is a baby boomer. Ever since baby boomers have come into power, our freedoms have been eroding, the Government has been growing, taxes have been rising, corruption has increased and the in my opinion the Country has become much more liberal. That said, The only time the Government decides what constitutes a religious group is when tax situations arises or for a Constitutional challenge. Any other time is just pure policy decisions like what Obama is trying to pull. Catholic Social Services is a non profit organization and under the tax codes is exempt because it a religious organization.The money they charge is needed to pay expenses and is not profit. I don't know anything about substance abuse exams but CSS isn't the only agency to conduct those exams. Noone is forced to use any particular agency but if the court  mandates where a person should go then the courts must have that authority, but that has nothing to do with CSS being a non profit. Your mixing apples with oranges. What do you mean by "the people that work there have the right to be free of the founders religion and belief system"?

[Sweater Cows!]

"What do you mean by "the people that work there have the right to be free of the founders religion and belief system"? means just what it says, Everyone has the right to be free of anyone elses religious belief system.

A Protestant has the right to be free of the beliefs of a Luthern(just as example but they must be different I don't know). to be more variesd...A Christian and Muslim and Jew have the right to be free of the others religious beliefs. a person can practice there beliefes in there own body whereever that body may be, but they can't force it upon another whatever means they choose including if they are their employer or not.

[Sweater Cows!]

One thing I think MANY people here and around the country do not understand is what is a religious org? Generally it is an org that is running under tax-exempt status do to religion or charity for spaying cats & dogs or whatever.

But, being tax exempt under 501c-3 does not make a org religion based. All 501c-3 does is say that that organization MUST give away X% of monies took in to other charities or people. A 501c-3 using CSS for this as an example  May give away that money in whatever religious form the founders choose, but like any kind of charitable org, take for example Susan G Koman, the people running these orgs are making $400,000 a year as Pres or board chairman or whatever, they are not any longer to me a charitable org or a religious org. They are a business paying people to do a job that may not in the end have anyting whatsoever to do with the 'charity or religion" part of it.

Obama and the gov't made a law that effects all business that employ people, the law doesn't make a distinction as to who is a religious org or not, the organizations themselves do that. But these orgs are a business employees public persons like me & you, not just people from their church group so the business law comes first.

[Willy]

When

You can't have it both ways. You don't want anyone telling you what to believe and how you should act on that belief but your more than willing to tell the Church they have to do what you say and go against their beliefs. Your argument is that they're a large origination with varied public services that you don't consider to be religious in nature unless they are praying. Your trying to impose your beliefs on someone else. They are providing services in the name of their religious beliefs according to the Bible, Koran, ect. But you and Obama think they have no right to do so unless they include services  you think they should provide. This is the beginning of tyranny and the dismantling of the Constitution. You again seem to miss the point. Obama and Government cannot say what religion is. They can define it for tax purposes only. The only other time it may be neccessary to explain what they, in thier opion, feel religion is, is during a Constitutional challenge such as a company who wants a  tax exempt status and may have to prove it's case by going to court. I'm not a religious person but It is clear to me where Obama and his cohorts and supporters are trying to take this Country and this includes willing partners such as yourself who are only to glad to give up your rights for the sake of free birth control pills.

[Max]

"A Protestant has the right to be free of the beliefs of a Luthern(just as example but they must be different I don't know)."

Just to be clear, a Lutheran is a Protestant.

Christianity, unlike Islam, Jews, or Lutherans, etc.  is not a religion.

[XLFD]

Whenwill and Lisa,

Obamacare has to be a dilemma for fair-minded people who believe in 'abortion rights'.  The 'freedom of choice' to do what you will with your body, is going to be the first thing aborted once Obamacare hits full stride. 

Think about it: Let's say you have a condition in which you can currently have four options.  But Obamacare will only reimburse and sanction option A, and not option B,C, or D.  Maybe B is too expensive, maybe C would not result in paybacks to the administrations favorite pharmaceutical, maybe D is too experimental and not condoned by the bureaucratic agency for whatever reason (even if it's the most effective, and novel approach). 

The doctor's and the patient's freedom of choice to do what they want with the patient's body is thereby limited by the government because of progressive intervention.  Your body is property of the state, the medical researcher who developed option D in the first place disappears from the scene, due to politics.  Would Ayn Rand approve of such a system? 

[Willy]

X

Very good points. I might add that woman who want abortion rights also want the right to force others to agree with them and to participate in their beliefs even though the others do not agree with them regarding abortion issues. They feel they're rights supersede  everyone else's rights. 

[Lisa O'Brien]

I don't think abortion proponents want everyone to agree with them - I think they just want the ones against it  to mind their own business. Personally for myself I don't believe in abortion - but that's me. It is not up to me what others chose to do. I don't have to walk in their shoes and I am not their keeper. 

[Willy]

Your right, they don't want everyone to agree with them, they just want taxpayers to pay for their abortions. They also want Religious groups to provide after morning pills and contraceptives. So I guess I would categorize it as they want a forced agreement. Not only do they want everyone to tow the line by paying their bills  but they have a "or else" attitude. And you are their keeper if you provide financial support to their cause.