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
Little Sisters lay out alternatives to HHS mandate before Supreme Court

Little Sisters lay out alternatives to HHS mandate before Supreme Court

Last updated on: April 13, 2016 at 9:26 pm by CNA Daily News

Little Sisters lay out alternatives to HHS mandate before Supreme Court 2016-04-13T21:26:00+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., Apr 13, 2016 / 03:26 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Asked whether there are ways for the government to provide contraceptive coverage that do not require them to violate their consciences, the Little Sisters of the Poor are saying “yes.”

“These non-profits said ‘yes’ to the Supreme Court, just as they have been saying ‘yes’ to the federal government for many years.” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Rienzi explained their supplemental brief submitted to the court on Tuesday outlining alternative means of ensuring government-mandated contraception coverage for employees without the direct or indirect participation of objecting employers.

“At some point, the government has to learn how to take yes for an answer. The religious objection has always been only to those methods of distribution that forced the non-profits and their plans to participate,” he continued.

The briefs by both the government and the plaintiffs were submitted to the Supreme Court Tuesday, April 12. The court in March had asked whether the parties believed that an alternative way existed of ensuring that employees receive contraceptive coverage mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act, without religious non-profits participating in a way that they believed made them morally culpable.

Not since the 1950s in Brown v. Board of Education has such a request been made by the Supreme Court in the middle of a case, Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog noted.

The responding brief by the Little Sisters and fellow plaintiffs answered that “Yes,” such paths exist, “including the way described in the Court’s order.” That process would consist of the religious non-profits, when contracting with their potential insurer, telling the insurer they do not want to offer the objectionable coverage in their health plan.

Then, the insurer would – separate from the health plan and at a separate cost – set up coverage of birth control for employees. The religious charities and non-profits wouldn’t have to issue any further notice of their objection.

This coverage must be “truly independent” of the religious employers, the brief maintained, “provided through a separate policy, with a separate enrollment process, a separate insurance card, and a separate payment source, and offered to individuals through a separate communication.”

Another acceptable way would be a “regulatory requirement” directly from the government that insurers provide the coverage separately, and contact employees separately to set up the government-sponsored coverage.

The point of the case is not for the Little Sisters and other objecting religious charities to say that people cannot get contraceptives, but simply that “I just can’t be involved,” Rienzi explained in a press phone conference Wednesday morning. The notion that they want to ban all contraceptives is “just a cartoon version of what the petitioners have claimed,” he said.

In their arguments before the Supreme Court, the Little Sisters and other plaintiffs – including Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, the Archdiocese of Washington, the pro-life group Priests for Life and several Christian colleges – had argued that the current “accommodation” offered them by the government does not protect their religious liberty.

The current process involves non-profits sending the government a notice of their objection to providing coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and drugs that can cause abortions. The government then notifies the insurer, who provides the coverage separately.

The plaintiffs say that since sending the government their objection is the action that prompts the coverage through their own health plans, they are forced to act as “gatekeepers” and “facilitate” the objectionable coverage. Furthermore, they argue the government is “hijacking” their health plan, which is an agreement between them and their insurer.

In the proposed process outlined in their supplemental brief, the Little Sisters say that as long as they can tell the insurer outright that they don’t want the coverage in their health plan, they don’t give any further notice of their objection, and the coverage is provided separately from their plan, this would distance themselves to an acceptable length from the process in terms of their moral culpability.

“They have to be out of it, and it can’t be something that is made part of their plan,” Rienzi stressed.

Employees, insurance companies and the federal government are aware of who is enrolled in a given company health plan, he said, so the government could easily take action such as publishing a notice about how the public could sign up for separate free contraceptive coverage.

“There are ways to do this without us,” Rienzi said of the government’s goal of providing contraceptive coverage to employees.

“Other states also have devised means of allowing individuals to contract directly with their insurance companies to obtain contraceptive coverage should their employer-sponsored plan exclude it for religious reasons,” the Little Sisters’ brief stated.

It happens “all the time” with dental and vision coverage, Rienzi said. The brief mentions this scenario, “in which individuals separately contract with insurance companies to obtain forms of coverage that are excluded from their principal health plans.”

A ruling in the Little Sisters’ case is expected this summer. The ruling could have far-reaching implications, as more than 300 plaintiffs across the country have filed lawsuits challenging the federal contraception mandate on grounds of conscience.

Founded in 1839 by Saint Jeanne Jugan, the Little Sisters of the Poor are dedicated to caring for the elderly and dying poor in more than 30 countries worldwide. The sisters operate 27 houses for the elderly in the United States.

Previous Post

April 13, 2016

One diocese is collecting hundreds of First Communion outfits - here's why

Next Post

April 13, 2016 Bishop Tobin shares birthday celebration with 106-year-old parishioner

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 is the coauthor of some of Paul's epistles and delivered them to churches?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Silas Barnabas Timothy Andrew