USCCB Response to HHS “Compromise”: Unacceptable

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm by Francis J. Beckwith

USCCB Response to HHS “Compromise”: Unacceptable 2015-03-13T13:28:14-04:00 Francis J. Beckwith

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.

Here’s the text:

Bishops Renew Call To Legislative Action On Religious Liberty

February 10, 2012

Regulatory changes limited and unclear

Rescission of mandate only complete solution

Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.

·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Previous Post

February 10, 2012

HHS "compromise" is Unacceptable, says former Vatican ambassador, Catholic University of America president, and others

Next Post

February 11, 2012 Return to Rome Special Posting: Catholic Bishops-only internal briefing on the HHS regulations "compromise"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2010 Election 2012 2012 Election Abortion Academic freedom Academic Freedom Alliance Affirmative Action Al Mohler Alvin Plantinga Amazon.com American Culture Animal Rights Anti-Catholic Bigotry Antichrist apologetics Apostolic Succession Appearance Aristotle Ash Wednesday atheism Baptists Barack Obama basketball Baylor Best Books Bias Biden Billy Joel bioethics Bishop Gorman High School Bishop Robert Barron blogging Bob Dylan books C. S. Lewis Called to Communion Calvin College Calvinism Cancel culture Casey v. Planned Parenthood Catholic Catholic Answers Catholic saints Catholic Social Thought Catholic World Report Catholicism China Christianity Christianity Today Christians Christmas Christopher Hitchens Chuck Colson Church Fathers Church of England communion of the saints Conclave Confirmation Conservatism Constitutional Law contraception conversion stories Cornel West Critical Race Theory Culture of Death Culture of Life Daddy's Little Girl Darby Beckwith David Boonin David Crowder David Novak Defending Life DEI Dinesh D'Souza Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Dr. Tod Worner E. O. Wilson Easter Edgardo Mortara Edith Schaeffer Elizabeth Beckwith Emergent Church Emily Edmondson Epistemology Equality Eric Metaxas Ethics Evangelical Philosophical Society Evangelical Theological Society Evangelicalism Evangelicals Evangelium Vitae EWTN faith and reason Falkirk Center family Federalist Society feminism Film First Amendment First Things Football Fr. Robert Barron Francis A. Schaeffer Frank Capra Frankie Beckwith God Good Friday Gospel Coalition Grateful Dead Gratitude Greg Koukl Ground Zero Mosque Hadley Arkes Harold Joseph Beckwith Harverford College Hell Higher Education Hillary Clinton Hobby Lobby Houston Baptist University Humanities humor Integralism intelligent design Internal Revenue Service Islam It's a Wonderful Life Ivy League J. Budziszewski Jesus Movement Jimmy Akin Jimmy Stewart Joe Dickerson John F. Kennedy John Gerstner John J. Haldane John Locke John Rawls Journeys of Faith Judaism Judith Jarvis Thomson Justification Keith Green Keith Whittington King James Version Las Vegas Latter-day Saints Laura Nyro Law Lawrence Ferlinghetti Levon Helm Liberalism Liberty University Lou Reed Lutheranism Malcolm & Alwyn Marriage Martin Luther Mary the Mother of God Media Media appearances Michael Licona Michael Ruse Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Mike Huckabee Mike Krzyzewski Miracles MIT Mitt Romney monozygotic twinning Moral Theology Mormonism music N. T. Wright Natural Law New Books Network New Evangelization new word New York Times Newt Gingrich Newtown Massacre Nicholas Wolterstorff Norman L. Geisler Note Dame Notre Dame NSA spying O. Carter Snead Papal Conclave Papal Conclave 2013 Passover Pat Robertson Patheos Penance Personhood Philosophy Philosophy of Religion Planned Parenthood Political Correctness Political Liberalism politics Politics for Christians Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul I Pope John Paul II Pope John XXIII Pope Leo XII Pope Paul VI Pope Pius XII Prayer in Schools President Barack Obama President Bill Clinton President Ronald W. Reagan Princeton Problem of Evil Prolife Protestantism Providence College Public Discourse Publications Publishing Purgatory R. C. Sproul Racism Ralph Wood RCIA Real Presence Reformation relativism relics Religion religious art Religious Liberty Religious urban legends Republican Party Resurrection Return to Rome Reversion Rhetoric Richard Dawkins Richard Mouw Rick Santorum Riley Beckwith Robert P. George Rod Dreher Roe v. Wade Roger Olson Ronald Dworkin Ronald W. Reagan Rush Limbaugh Russell Moore Ryan T. Anderson Sanctity of Life Satan Sexual Ethics Sexual misconduct Snoop Dogg Social Justice South Park Southern Baptists Speaking Engagement Speech St. Augustine St. Francis of Assisi St. Peter's Catholic Student Center St. Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas More stained glass Stand to Reason Stanford Stephen H. Webb Studies in Christian Ethics Super Bowl LV Syllabus The Band The Beatles The Bible The Catholic Thing the Christian university The City The King's College The Moral Argument The Sacraments The Vatican theology Theology of the Body Thomas Aquinas Thomas Nagel Thomas S. Hibbs Thomistic Institute Tim Challies Timothy George Tolerance Tony Sclafani Transubstantiation Trump U. S. Supreme Court Uncategorized University Faculty for Life University of Dallas UNLV Vatican Virtual Book Burning Volokh Conspiracy Walker Percy William F. Buckley William Lane Craig Wokeness Word of Fire

Select a Month August 2025 June 2025 March 2025 February 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 July 2024 April 2024 March 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 January 2023 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 September 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 October 2015 August 2015 July 2015 May 2015 April 2015 July 2014 April 2014 March 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 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the meaning of "Golgotha," the place of Jesus' crucifixion?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Place of the Skull Place of Tears Valley of Death House of Sorrows

USCCB Response to HHS “Compromise”: Unacceptable

Bishops Renew Call To Legislative Action On Religious Liberty

February 10, 2012

Regulatory changes limited and unclear

Rescission of mandate only complete solution

Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

Today, the President has done two things.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

What is the meaning of "Golgotha," the place of Jesus' crucifixion?