Note that the contraceptives mandate applies to all health insurance plans— |
|
|
|
|
|
it is not a condition attached to federal funds such that a religious organization
can avoid the violation of its convictions by refusing a federal grant or contract.
Not only Catholic leaders, but also evangelicals and orthodox Jews, among
others, protested the mandate, because it requires including contraceptives
includes abortifacients, or because of the evil of forcing religious employers to
pay for "preventive services" they regard as immoral. And they protested the
exemption that essentially defines most faith-based service organizations as not
being religious at all. That's a terrible precedent to put into federal law and practice.
On Friday the administration gave its answer to all of the protests is: No change!
No budging. No accommodation. No change in the mandate, for example, by
eliminating the most controversial drugs, Plan B and ella, from required
coverage. No change in the exemption, not even to protect church-governed charities.
The administration blandly assured everyone that it had carefully listened to the
many protesting religious leaders. But it judged that no change was necessary.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
said, "I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting
religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."
Oh, there was a concession, one change: the administration announced a
one-year delay in imposition of the birth control mandate for nonprofit
employers who currently do not pay for contraceptives in their health insurance
plans because of their religious convictions.
This delay, Secretary Sebelius said, "will allow these organizations more time and fledibility and flexibility to adapt to this new rule." |
|
|
In other words, this is not a year to negotiate a change that would accommodate
religious convictions. No, just a year for the organizations to learn to suppress
their moral qualms.
A year delay, many observers noted, puts the deadline for these protesting
organizations safely on the other side of the presidential elections.
Among the responses to Friday's announcement:
* Galen Carey, VP of Government Relations for the National Association of
Evangelicals, said, "No government has the right to compel its citizens to
violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished
freedoms and set a dangerous precedent."
* Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission, called the decision "outrageous." "It's analogous to
giving a man on death row a one-year stay of execution. You can follow your
conscience for one more year."
* Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "Never before has the federal
government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace
and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn't happen in a
land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."
* Even the Washington Post blasted the administration, saying that it should
have expanded the exemption and calling the one-year delay a "feint at a
compromise."
Remedies: Two religious colleges, Belmont Abbey College (Catholic) and
Colorado Christian University (Protestant) have already sued the federal
government. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represents the two
colleges. Other religious institutions of higher education are contemplating
lawsuits. And several bills have been introduced into Congress to deal with
the religious-freedom and conscience concerns in the health reform legislation,
including the problem of the birth control mandate.
Adding insult to injury, some defenders of the administration, to fend off
charges that its actions diminish religious freedom, try to heap credit on it
simply for upholding the law. For example, Sarah Posner, at Religion
Dispatches, has written, "[T]he notion that the federal government has
somehow discriminated against Catholics is rendered even more absurd by
the hard numbers: in 2011 alone, according to the federal government
database at www.usaspending.gov, Catholic Charities received over $753
million in federal funding. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has not, as
the president promised on the campaign trail, reformed faith-based funding to
ensure, among other things, that groups receiving taxpayer aid do not
discriminate in hiring." But, of course, the federal government awards funding
to particular private organizations not as an act of favor but because those
organizations appear to be the most cost-effective suppliers of services; and
what critics term "religious job discrimination" in fact is a management practice
that is undergirded by federal laws and court decisions.
Take Note: The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance organized two
letters from leaders of organizations of various faiths, protesting the mandate
and narrow exemption.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment