Committee hearing held on HHS mandate

Representatives of Judaism and Christianity appeared before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to explain the reasons for their opposition to the Obama administration’s plan to force employers to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs.

Some committee members protested because only two women appeared as witnesses.  However, Dr. Laura Champion explained, “This is not about politics, this is not about contraception, and this is not about depriving women of health care. Rather, this is personal. This is about my daily life as a physician, a Christian, and a Medical Services Director.”

John H. Garvey, President of the Catholic University of America, said that the regulation “makes hypocrites of us all, in the most important lessons we teach.”  Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University told the Committee that the alternative scheme proposed by the administration “does not present a workable solution. The Administration has not yet proposed anything new. . . All the Administration has offered to do is to discuss the issue further.”

The Committee heard from ten witnesses.

Controversial HHS regulation published: no change

The Department of Health and Human Services regulation that will force employers to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs has been published in the US Federal Register.  Contrary to an administration statement  on 10 February, 2012, the regulation has not been changed to accommodate objecting religious believers.  The wording and legal effect of the regulation remains exactly as it was when it was announced on 20 January, 2012.  The accompanying commentary on the regulation by the Obama administration offers mainly socio-political and ecnomic reasons for it.  The commentary makes several promises about what the administration plans to do, but none of these will be effective until after the presidential election in November,  2012.

Dispute develops about cost, payment for birth control insurance

The Obama administration’s alternative scheme for providing insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs is being marketed as cost-free by its supporters.  They argue that the coverage can be provided by insurance companies without additional cost to the employer because it is actually cheaper to offer health insurance with birth control coverage than without it.  Others insist that costs will be passed on to the employer through insurance premiums. [Time; NPR]

Prominent American academics state Obama offer of accommodation is “unacceptable”

In a sharply worded open letter, the President of the Catholic University of America, law professors from Harvard, Princeton and the University of Notre Dame and a former Chief of Staff of the President’s Council on Biothics have rejected the Obama administration’s promise of accommodation as “a cheap accounting trick” and ” a grave violation of religious freedom.” The letter is also signed by over 200 others, including religious leaders of different denominations, college presidents, academics, religious leaders and journalists. [CNS]

UNACCEPTABLE

Letter from American university presidents, academics, religious leaders and journalists

This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise.

The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey
President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead
Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin
Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

[For the complete list of signatories, see the original letter]

UNESCO official suggests mandatory registration of physicians who object to abortion

The UNESCO Chair in Bioethics at the University of Barcelona held a seminar on  “Abortion and conscientious objection” in early February.  The Chair’s director, Maria Casado, told the press that Spain should establish a national registry of physicians who object to abortion as a method of ensuring access to the procedure.  While she claimed to support a right to conscientious objection, she said that “When [it] is transformed into a collective stance for ideological reasons, it turns into civil disobedience.”  [ELN]