At Mass this past weekend, most Roman Catholics in the United States heard sermons or were read letters from their Bishops railing against a recent decision by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning implementation of health care reform. My own Bishop, Thomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, said in his letter that President Obama was “being either dishonest or delusional or he is incompetent.” He also referred to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a “pro-abortion Catholic.” This rhetoric was apparently typical, as Bishops across the nation characterized the HHS decision as nothing less than an attack on religious liberty.
It being the (sad) case that a dedication to the facts has been lacking in some similar communications from the Church hierarchy in the past, I felt it necessary to investigate the matter myself. It has been difficult to parse, but here is what I’ve learned.
The controversy centers on which preventive services for women will be mandated for insurance plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was passed into law by Congress in 2010. The law gave HHS broad discretion to determine which services would receive required coverage.
In the Summer of 2011, HHS announced rules requiring all new private health plans to cover preventive services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, and childhood immunizations without charging a copayment, deductible or coinsurance. In the Interim Rule announced by HHS in August of 2011, “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” was added to the list of required preventive services. “Religious institutions” were given an exemption from the requirement.
“The administration also released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services. This regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception.”
– HHS Press Release, August 1st, 2011
So churches would be exempt from the provision, and could legally exclude such services from their employee health plans.
The problem, as I understand it, is that the exemption does not apply to organizations such as hospitals, schools, universities and charitable groups that are affiliated with churches, but only to the churches themselves. The Bishops and other religious groups were in conversation with the Obama Administration during the period of comment for the rules, advocating for a broader exemption. On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that the final rule will allow the affiliated institutions an additional year (until August 1st, 2013) to comply with the law, but will not exempt them from the provision.
Whether this constitutes an attack on religious liberty (or violates First Amendment protections) I do not know. I’m still trying to understand the implications more clearly, and would welcome pointers to more information, commentary and discussions. Clearly at issue is the tension between the rights of faith-based institutions to practice and defend their beliefs, and the rights of individuals and our society to be free from imposition of those beliefs.
I’ll be posting more here as I give the matter additional study and prayerful consideration.
A Few Links
E.J. Dionne’s Analysis (RealClearPolitics, 24 November 2011)
Connie says
Even if the institution provides the “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling”, isn’t it still up the to the individual whether or not they want to USE those options?
Just as having a specific religious belief is the right of an individual (nobody is forcing them to believe in any certain way), isn’t it also up to the woman to decide whether she wants to go against her religion’s belief (no contraceptions are to be used), and isn’t it up to her if she still wants to use that same religous institution for health care? If she disobeys the church – it is SHE that must suffer the consiquences, not the government. The institution is providing the service for anybody that wants and needs it. Plain and simple. They aren’t forcing anybody to use it.
Noebie says
that’s certainly one aspect of the debate
the argument on the other side is that funds of the religious institution would be used for a purpose that is against its teachings
also there is the issue of people who do not hold those beliefs, who are employees of the institution – protestants or atheists working for a catholic hospital, for instance
a difficult balancing act all around the board
is access to contraception a fundamental right?
lots to consider in this one
Linda C says
You stated that you do not know if this is an attack or not, but everyday, our Bishops are asked to make decisions, issue statements, and take actions with one thing in mind – the salvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of souls. That’s a sobering dose of responsibility. And as a bonus, these shepherds carry out their vocation with the certain knowledge that no matter what they do, a good percentage of the souls they are charged with will be left disappointed, upset, or outraged at them. That’s not a job anyone should envy and certainly not one that we should take for granted. God bless them for answering God’s call.
At the end of the day (and that day, if we want to be precise, is August 1, 2013), the HHS mandate doesn’t force most of us (unless we own a small business) to do anything. The bishops aren’t so lucky. The actual responsibility for the decisions that will need to be made regarding the cold hard consequences of the mandate lies squarely on the shoulders of the bishops.
The bishops will be the ones who will have to stand up, just as St. Polycarp and St. John Fisher did before them, and say, with dire consequence, ”We cannot, and we will not.” And they will be the first to suffer.
Will we humbly pray for them, or question them and demand that they and God listen to what we think the teachings of the church should be. God bless.
Noebie says
thank you for your thoughtful and articulate comments, linda
without question the bishops have not only the right, but the obligation, to speak out about these concerns and to advocate for what they are led by our lord to see as moral and just
as to the bishops suffering as a consequence of their ultimate decision in this case, i would guess that they’ll be just fine, as will the politicians in washington – it is sad that the same cannot be said for those whose lives will suffer the effects of a failure on all sides to find an amicable solution
it is perplexing that hhs has chosen such a narrow definition on the conscience issue
i’m not sure, though, that the characterization of the president as “dishonest, delusional or incompetent” was necessary, productive or in keeping with the spirit of the gospel
obama will not have my vote in 2012 for many reasons – that being said, i suspect that this sort of angry rhetoric, smacking of rank partisan political advocacy, undercuts the authoritative moral leadership of the bishops
indeed, we must keep our shepherds (and our secular leaders) in our prayers – and ourselves as well, that we may discern issues in these difficult times in a spirit of honesty, of respect for opposing views, and of compassion toward one another