The Obama administration has announced a requirement that all new
insurance plans must cover contraceptives and sterilization.
However,
the religious exemptions are so narrow that they could force Catholic
charities, health care providers and educational institutions to cover
services they regard as sinful, Catholic leaders warned.
Cardinal
Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston said Aug. 1 that the stated
exemption is “so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social services and
healthcare providers.”
The only situation where Catholic
institutions would be free to act in accord with their religious beliefs
is “if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics,” said the
cardinal, who chairs the U.S. bishops’ committee on pro-life activities.
The
Department of Health and Human Services said on Aug. 1 that the
guidelines, which were created in response to the 2010 health care law,
require new health insurance plans to cover “women’s preventive
services.”
These include breastfeeding support, domestic violence
screening and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance
or a deductible.
The Obama administration also released a proposed
amendment that allows religious institutions “that offer insurance to
their employees” the choice of whether to cover contraceptive 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 welcomes comment on this
policy,” the department said.
The exemptions cover a non-profit
religious employer whose purpose is “the inculcation of religious
values,” which primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets,
and which primarily serves those who share its religious tenets.
“Our
religious freedom is under attack,” warned Patrick J. Reilly, president
of the Cardinal Newman Society. He said that the guidelines “would
force Catholic colleges to violate the law or violate the Catholic
faith.”
Colleges may be forced to help students and employees obtain free contraceptives and sterilization, he added.
The
exemption language is “ambiguous” and “likely to be interpreted with a
bias against Catholic agencies.” Reilly said.
He speculated that federal
officials could define whether a Catholic college primarily serves
Catholics based on its student body statistics.
Catholic
University of America president John Garvey wrote an open letter on the
regulation proposals that was published in the Jesuits’ America Magazine
on Aug. 1.
“Employers, employees, and issuers who have moral and religious objections to sterilization, contraception, and abortion are now free to have health care coverage that excludes these practices,” Garvey noted.
“Employers, employees, and issuers who have moral and religious objections to sterilization, contraception, and abortion are now free to have health care coverage that excludes these practices,” Garvey noted.
But a mandate by the government to require coverage for
these service “would break both old and new promises to deprive them of
that liberty,” he wrote.
The Catholic University president worried
that the United States’ “distinguished record of liberal toleration
might soon come to an end.”
Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family
Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, said the conscience
protections are a “fig leaf” that targets certain churches that fulfill
“very specific criteria.”
“This administration is promoting mandates that will violate the consciences of millions,” she said on Aug. 1.
Religious
groups that provide social services, those that engage in missions work
to people of different religious faiths, religious health insurance
companies, and religious health care providers are “not protected from
any discrimination whatever,” Monahan explained.
She also noted
that the mandate will include FDA-approved drugs like Ella and Plan B,
which can “destroy a developing baby” before or after implantation in
the mother’s womb.
Both Garvey and the Family Research Council
have backed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, sponsored
by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.).
Garvey
said the bill is a measure that “everyone who cares about religious
liberty can support” and would prevent any new mandates in last year’s
health care legislation from “infringing upon the rights of conscience.”
Cardinal
DiNardo also backed the conscience protection legislation in a July 19
statement issued while the HHS was still considering possible
regulations.
The U.S. bishops’ pro-life chairman also defended
Catholic teaching against contraceptives and sterilizations in the same
statement.
“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a
pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically
possible,” he said.