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
Bishops say mandate still threatens religious liberty

Bishops say mandate still threatens religious liberty

Last updated on: March 21, 2013 at 11:12 pm by CNA Daily News

Bishops say mandate still threatens religious liberty 2013-03-21T23:12:00+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., Mar 21, 2013 / 05:12 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite proposals to modify the federal contraception mandate, the U.S. bishops said that the regulation is still unacceptable due to its narrow view of religion and resulting violations of religious liberty.

“The identity of the person or group having the religious freedom objection should not matter; what should matter instead is whether the person or group faces government coercion to violate conscience,” said a document filed on behalf of the U.S. bishops.

“Religious freedom is for all who face this threat, not just some,” the March 20 statement declared.

The document was written by Anthony R. Picarello and Michael F. Moses, lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Responding to a government comment period, it offers feedback on a proposed change to the federal contraception mandate.

“We are willing, now as always, to work with the Administration to reach a just and lawful resolution of these issues,” the lawyers said. “In the meantime, along with others, we will continue to look for resolution of these issues in Congress and in the courts.”

Issued under the authority of the Affordable Care Act, the mandate requires nearly all employers to offer insurance plans covering abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization, even if providing those products violates their deeply-held religious beliefs.

While a small number of religious exemptions were included in the original mandate – mainly to houses of worship – the vast majority of religious organizations were bound by its requirements.

The mandate has come under fire by the U.S. bishops and scores of other religious leaders, who criticize the regulation for violating their constitutional right to religious freedom. More than 100 plaintiffs across the country have filed lawsuits challenging the mandate.

In response to the wave of protests, the Obama administration proposed an “accommodation” under which the objectionable coverage would be offered for free to employees of religious organizations that oppose the mandate.

The administration said this coverage can be offered for free because the cost of the contraceptives would be offset by the “tremendous health benefits” that women enjoy from using contraception, along with the fewer childbirths that will result.

Critics have voiced doubt over these claims, arguing that the coverage will ultimately be funded through the premium payments of the objecting religious groups.

The bishops’ comments enumerated a number of problems with the proposed update to the regulations.

First, the document explained, the suggested alteration “makes no change in the underlying mandate” and still requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-causing drugs.

“These are items and procedures that, unlike other mandated ‘preventive services,’ do not prevent disease,” it stated.

Furthermore, the suggested change “offers no exemption or accommodation of any kind whatsoever” to for-profit businesses, secular non-profits and individual business owners who believe the coverage to be immoral, nor does it allow individuals who do not wish to have such coverage to refuse it when they enroll.

Additionally, while the mandate’s language defining “religious institutions” has improved, the statement explained, “it continues to be highly objectionable” by treating religiously-affiliated charities, schools, hospitals and institutions as having “secondary religious importance” to houses of worship.

In discussing the mandate, the bishops have voiced serious concern over the language it uses to discuss religious institutions and activities, implying that soup kitchens, hospitals and other religious charities are deserving of a lesser degree of religious freedom than churches, temples and synagogues.

The comments stated that “just as religion is not limited to worship, the freedom of religion is not limited to the freedom of worship. Religious freedom must also include the freedom to abide by Church teachings, even outside the four walls of the sanctuary.”

Even non-profit religious institutions that fall under the accommodation will not be relieved of the “burden on religious liberty that the mandate creates,” the bishops’ statement explained. Since funds paid by the employer for other services can be used to pay for the objectionable products, “there still seems to be a funding tie between the employer and the objectionable coverage.”

In addition, there is no accommodation for self-insured plans, it noted.

For these reasons, the mandate breaks a number of federal laws, in addition to the U.S. Constitution, the bishops’ document said.

“As applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage, the mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act,” it stressed.

Previous Post

March 21, 2013

Priest kidnapped in Argentina clears Pope of accusations

Next Post

March 22, 2013 US help for jailed Iran pastor 'woefully' inept, congressmen charge

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

What was Paul's native language?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Greek Latin Aramaic Hebrew