Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
US Bishops’ attorneys call mandate ‘accommodation’ inadequate

US Bishops’ attorneys call mandate ‘accommodation’ inadequate

Last updated on: May 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm by CNA Daily News

US Bishops’ attorneys call mandate ‘accommodation’ inadequate 2012-05-16T21:06:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., May 16, 2012 / 03:06 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Arguing that a promised “accommodation” to the Obama administration’s contraception mandate fails to address religious freedom concerns, attorneys for the U.S. bishops suggest a possible lawsuit if the mandate is not rescinded.

“Absent prompt congressional attention to this infringement on fundamental civil liberties, we believe the only remaining recourse, in light of the approaching regulatory deadlines, is in the courts,” said lawyers representing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The mandate and its extremely narrow religious exemption are currently being challenged in at least 11 lawsuits by states, colleges, private employers and organizations across the country.

On May 15, Anthony R. Picarello and Michael F. Moses, who serve as general counsel and associate general counsel, respectively, for the bishops’ conference, submitted formal comments on the most recent suggestions regarding the administration’s contraception mandate.

The controversial mandate will require employers to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

While the mandate includes a religious exemption, few groups would qualify for it because it applies only to nonprofit organizations that exist for the purpose of inculcating religious values and both serve and employ primarily members of their own faiths.

The bishops’ attorneys reiterated their previous argument that this exemption is “unprecedented in federal law, improperly narrow, and unlawful.”

Widespread criticism of the mandate led the Obama administration to publish a new “advance notice of proposed rulemaking” in March. The notice outlines various suggestions for different ways to implement the mandate as it will apply to religious organizations that oppose the required coverage but do not qualify for the exemption.

The administration has invited public comment on the advance notice until June 19. Afterwards, it will move forward with the process of issuing further regulations on the implementation of the mandate.

In their comment, the bishops’ lawyers repeated arguments that in addition to being poor health policy, “the mandate itself is unjust and unlawful,” in violation of numerous federal statutes and the First Amendment’s protections of religious liberty.

The attorneys observed that the mandate is already finalized and has not been changed by the advance notice, which promises a future “accommodation” but does not affect the rule as it is written.

Furthermore, they said, the promised accommodation will not extend to secular stakeholders that object to the mandate. Rather, the Obama administration has made it clear that the accommodation will apply only to religious organizations.

In addition, the attorneys said, the accommodation does not provide adequate relief, “even for those few stakeholders that qualify for it.”

They argued that the suggested options regarding coverage through a third-party administrator are all insufficient because the plan itself continues to fund or serve “as a gateway” to facilitate earmarked funding for objectionable products and procedures.

Either by paying for the coverage through their premiums or allowing access to such coverage through the plan itself, objecting organizations will be facilitating something that they consider gravely immoral, they said.

The bishops’ lawyers also pointed out that by having insurers or third-party administrators automatically provide the controversial coverage, women are denied the freedom to decline the coverage or to prevent their minor children from being offered “free” and “private” contraceptives and related “education” without parental consent.

They further noted that the religious rights of third-party administrators and insurance issuers have not been adequately addressed.

The attorneys also voiced concern over the fact that numerous individuals, employers and insurers who object to the mandate are not eligible for the “temporary enforcement safe harbor,” which would delay the implementation of the mandate for one year.

These stakeholders will be subject to the mandate for plan or policy years starting as soon as August 1, 2012, the attorneys warned. In the next few months, they will face the choice of violating their deeply-held beliefs or dropping out of the health insurance marketplace, with the possibility of facing crippling penalties that could put them out of business.

Furthermore, the lawyers said, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking raises new questions, as some of its statements are ambiguous or hypothetical and require clarification.

They observed that the administration has not yet determined how to treat religious organizations that object to some but not all of the coverage, such as Christian groups that oppose abortion-causing drugs but allow for contraceptive use.

In such cases, the government should recognize the conscience rights “of all stakeholders,” whether they object to part or all of the mandated coverage, they said.

The bishops’ attorneys also argued that an organization’s past inclusion of contraception and related coverage should not prevent it from qualifying for an accommodation in the future. The Obama administration has already made previous coverage of such products a disqualification for the “temporary enforcement safe harbor” that is being offered to some groups.

However, the lawyers noted, some employers and organizations may have included such coverage “mistakenly or unknowingly,” and now wish to correct that error in accordance with their conscience.

The bishops’ attorneys emphasized that “the only complete solution to this set of problems is to rescind the mandate.”

Short of that, they said, the administration should at least “adopt an exemption that protects the consciences of all stakeholders with a religious or moral objection to the mandate.”

Previous Post

May 16, 2012

At installation, Baltimore archbishop affirms faith's role in national life

Next Post

May 16, 2012 Pope outlines power of the Holy Spirit in prayer

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was David’s best friend?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jonathan Samuel Joseph Saul