Court rejects Catholic concerns about new contraception mandate rules

Last updated on: November 14, 2014 at 11:48 pm by CNA Daily News

Court rejects Catholic concerns about new contraception mandate rules 2014-11-14T23:48:00+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., Nov 14, 2014 / 04:48 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A U.S. appeals court ruled Friday against Catholic organizations with objections to the Obama administration’s latest opt-out rules for mandated contraceptive and sterilization health insurance coverage.

“To ask a group of priests to cooperate in the government’s plan to expand access to birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is about as contrary to religious freedom as you can get,” Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, said Nov. 14.

He said that if the government is sincere in providing an opt-out mechanism, “it is reasonable for us to insist that we be given a way to opt out that does not itself violate our moral conscience. And whether it violates our conscience is for us to say, not the government.”

Fr. Pavone’s comments came in reaction to a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, writing for a three-judge panel, said the Obama administration’s revised rules “do not impose a substantial burden” on the plaintiffs, who include the Archdiocese of Washington, the Catholic University of America, Thomas Aquinas College, and Priests for Life.

Pillard said that the opt-out mechanism is “minimal” paperwork.

“Religious nonprofits that opt out are excused from playing any role in the provision of contraception services, and they remain free to condemn contraception in the clearest terms,” she said.

The mandated coverage includes sterilization procedures and contraceptives, including some drugs with abortifacient properties. Catholic ethics reject the use of such drugs and procedures, as well as moral complicity in providing them.

The changes to the mandate now require employers to notify the federal government of their objection to the mandate; this notification then prompts the government to arrange the coverage that the employers find objectionable.

Previously, objecting employers were required to authorize an insurer or third-party administrator to provide the objectionable products and procedures.

Some objectors say that the revised arrangement still requires employers to participate in facilitating access to products and procedures that violate their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Michael McLean, president of Thomas Aquinas College, said, “We disagree with the opinion of the D.C. Court of Appeals in our challenge to the HHS contraceptive mandate, and we will be appealing it to the United States Supreme Court. We look forward to vindicating our religious liberty rights there.”

Priests for Life said that the court ruling wrongly claimed that the plaintiffs object to the government’s “independent actions in mandating contraceptive coverage” rather than to action that the government requires of them.

“What we object to are the actions the government is asking us to take,” Priests for Life explained.

“We refuse to take actions that are necessary to help the government ‘fill the gap’ to provide drugs that kill babies and harm women.”

A different federal court’s ruling has sided with objectors to the new rules.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Oct. 28 granted Ave Maria University preliminary protection from the revised federal mandate. It ruled that the revised exemption does not adequately protect religious employers with conscientious objections.

The Obama administration modified its mandate after a June Supreme Court ruling held that the mandate violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing the owners of “closely-held” for-profit employers to go against their religious beliefs.

Previous Post

November 14, 2014

Democracy and rights in Burma? Not without religious freedom

Next Post

November 15, 2014 A new love language: Post synod conference seeks ways to communicate truth of marriage

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

Which Christian group is known for its rejection of military service and political involvement?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Amish Baptist Assemblies of God Methodist