Category: Law

Proposed Amendment to HHS Regulation

Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act

Introduction:

The Obama administration has decided that, as a matter of public policy, individual women should not have to pay for “FDA approved contraceptive services,” which include surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocides.  The reasons offered for this policy are mainly economic and socio-political.

A regulation was written by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for this purpose. The regulation requires all group health care plans (the kind of plan usually offered by businesses or oganizations) to offer coverage and fully pay for “preventive services” identified in Section 147.130 (reproduced below, in part).  Businesses with 50 or more employees must offer such coverage by 2014, or face penalties. Health insurance issuers (like insurance companies) must also make available group and individual plans that fully pay for “preventive services.”

The regulation sparked widespread protests and opposition from religious groups and, as of February, 2013, had generated 47 lawsuits launched by over 130 plaintiffs.  11 of 14 federal courts hearing the suits issued temporary injunctions to protect plaintiffs against the regulation.

In response, the Obama administration has issued proposed amendments to the regulation.

Update on American HHS birth control mandate controversy: January, 2013

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed a lawsuit against the regulation on behalf of two Ohio companies [Lifenews]. A U.S. District Judge has dismissed suits  filed by the Archdiocese of Washington and four other Catholic nonprofit groups on the grounds that the suits are premature [Bloomberg] Lawsuits filed by Colorado Christian University and Notre Dame University in Indiana have also been dismissed [The Coloradoan; First Things].  The Catholic diocese of Nashville, Tennessee and seven other groups in the state are appealing a lower court ruling against them[The Tennessean].  In Illinois, a temporary injunction has been granted against state legislation that is similar to the HHS regulation because the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Health Care Right of Conscience Act [Georgia Bulletin].  However, the U.S. federal government is appealing a decision to grant a temporary injunction against the HHS regulation to Tyndale House Publishers Inc. of Illinois [Bloomberg].A temporary injunction against the HHS regulation has been granted to a Missouri company, Sharpe Holdings Inc., the third such injunction granted in the state [St. Louis Beacon].    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli attracted criticism because of his remarks to the effect that the nature of the HHS regulation will only become apparent if people go to jail for refusing to obey it [Reason.com]

For a map and up-to-date overview of lawsuits filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, see the Becket Fund’s HHS Information Central.

Canary in the Coal Mine: Mounting Religious Restrictions in Europe

Religious Freedom Project
Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs

Roger Trigg

On January 15, 2013, the European Court of Human Rights issued judgments on four cases of great significance for the cause of religious freedom. What they say could well have repercussions beyond Europe itself. . .

These four cases all came from the United Kingdom, and concerned the place of religion, and a religiously formed conscience, in modern European society. . . The point of principle at stake is how much importance should be given publically to religiously based principles, particularly in societies that are growing increasingly secular. [Read on]

 

Medicine, Strasbourg, and conscientious objection

European Court of Human Rights decision

Julian Sheather*

. . .Conscientious objection is a live issue in medicine. . . Given the prevailing political pluralism—given the co-existence in our culture of different value systems—to what extent should medicine accommodate such objections? Should those whose consciences differ be treated differently? What forms of conscientious objection should be tolerated and on the basis of what criteria?
[Full Text]

Uruguay’s Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Act

 Protection of conscience provisions may be defined out of existence

Sean Murphy*

In the fall of 2012 the Uruguayan legislature passed the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Act, which legalized abortion in the country under certain circumstances.  By January, 2013, Reuters was reporting that the law was meeting “fierce opposition” among Uruguayan gynaecologists, with up to a third of them refusing to provide the procedure for reasons of conscience;1 in some locations, almost none will do so. . . Full Text