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
Religious freedom groups worried over final HHS mandate

Religious freedom groups worried over final HHS mandate

Last updated on: June 28, 2013 at 11:31 pm by CNA Daily News

Religious freedom groups worried over final HHS mandate 2013-06-28T23:31:00+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., Jun 28, 2013 / 05:31 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Despite assurances from the Obama administration that the finalized version of the contraception mandate accounts for freedom of conscience, some religious liberty advocates are still concerned.

“The final rule,” explained Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “is not very different from the inadequate rule that was proposed back in February.”

While the final rule “tinkered with some of the mechanisms” regarding the mandate’s implementation, Rassbach said in a June 28 teleconference, it did not address “the mandate’s fundamental religious freedom questions.”

The Becket Fund is a law firm specializing in religious freedom litigation, and is representing numerous plaintiffs who have filed suit against the contraception mandate.

Issued under the Affordable Care Act, the mandate requires employers to offer health insurance plans that include contraception, sterilizations and some drugs that can cause early abortions. More than 200 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits challenging mandate, arguing that it violates their right to religious freedom by forcing them to violate their consciences.

In response to the widespread objections, the Obama administration announced that it would modify the mandate to account for the religious liberty of objecting employers. During the months that followed, the admiration took multiple steps to make changes to the mandate, which was finalized on June 28.

The final version of the regulation offers an exemption to religious employers that fall under Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

The administration has said that this “would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations.”

Religious groups such as hospitals, schools and charitable agencies that object to the mandate but are not affiliated with houses of worship may not qualify for the exemption. Instead, they are offered an “accommodation” under which their insurance issuers will directly “provide payments for contraceptive services” purchased by their employees.

Self-insured employers will go through a similar process with a third party administrator providing or arranging for the payments.

Insurance issuers must ensure that they are not using money paid by the employers to fund the contraception and related products. According to the administration, the insurance companies can pay for these products with no reimbursement because funding contraception is “cost-neutral” for them, due to the reduced pregnancy costs and the health benefits that result from contraceptive use.

Critics, however, have warned that the products will not be cost-neutral and that the insurance companies may end up funding them through increased premiums charged to the objecting employers.

Rassbach stated that the final rule still contains several threats to religious liberty. He explained that non-profit organizations must still act as “gatekeepers” who facilitate the controversial products, since their insurance plans are necessary to trigger the contraceptive payments from the insurance companies.

He added that religious owners of for-profit businesses are given no relief from the mandate at all. They are required to provide the coverage, even if they object, and could face potentially crippling fines if they refuse.

“I don’t buy the government’s attempt to discriminate between a non-profit and a for-profit,” he said. “They’re trying to turn it into a status protection, rather than a protection of religious exercise.”

“The easy way to resolve this would have been to exempt sincere religious employers completely, as the Constitution requires,” he argued. “Instead this issue will have to be decided in court.”

Brian Walsh, executive director of the American Religious Freedom Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, also voiced concerns over the finalized regulation.

“The administration continues to refuse to include in its mandate the sort of robust exemptions that have been understood since the founding of this nation to be necessary to protect religious liberty,” he told CNA.

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, explained in a statement shortly after the finalized mandate was released that the 110-page regulation is “complex” and will require “careful analysis” by the bishops before a response can be issued.

Cardinal Dolan had previously stressed the importance of religious liberty for all people, including owners of for-profit businesses.

“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” he said in a February analysis. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”

Lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed this point in March, stating in a document that “(t)he 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.”

Previous Post

June 28, 2013

God acts in our lives on his timetable, not ours, Pope stresses

Next Post

June 29, 2013 Group celebrates first ordinations since reunion with Rome

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 is the effect of the Red Horse's arrival in revelations?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Plagues spread across the land Peace is taken from the earth People fall into a deep sleep The sun turns black