11 February 2012

Responses from Archbishop Carlson and the USCCB to the Non-Compromise

First, Archbishop Carlson's letter:

St. Louis, MO--Today, the Obama Administration announced it will implement a policy which "accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women." While it is positive that the administration continues to review the issue, it remains tobe seen whether today's announced action will form the basis of a resolution.
Unfortunately, what this accommodation really means is that religious groups will still be forced to purchase healthcare coverage that includes contraception and abortifacients. The fact that the responsibility is now on the insurance companies is simply a matter of semantics. It does not appearthat there is any substantive change from the original regulation requiring health plans sponsored by religiously affiliated entities to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion inducing drugs to which we have objected.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that the issue at hand isthe protection of one of our most basic freedoms—the freedom of religious rights. What President Obama's Administration presented today does not yet appear to be the best possible solution to this gravely important matter.
To echo the statement released today by Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB, this dialogue must be kept open. We have not yet reached agreement on the matter. The Archdiocese of St. Louis is, at this point, unable to say whether the proposal of President Obama for the resolution of the problems created by the contraception, sterilization, and availability of abortion inducing drugs mandate of his administration will provide any relief for religiously affiliated employers.
Let us call to mind a statement from the Congressional documents of the United States, "The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation with his God is above human legislation and his rights of conscience inalienable. . . It is an inborn principle whichnothing can eradicate."

Second, the USCCB statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the "preventive services" regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.
First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated "preventive services" prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.
Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such "services" immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individualemployees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of "religious employers" that HHS proposed to exempt initially.
Today, the President has done two things.
First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.
Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which isstill unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:
  • It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.
  • It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.
  • Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.
These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.
We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all. 


Peggy IL said...

Go to Rocco Palmo's Whispers in the Loggia to see the internal letter to fellow bishops from USCCB leadership.

Anonymous said...

But where is the USCCB's public letter responding to CHa (and of course, when it comes to dissent against the Church of late, the ubiquitous Sister Carol Keehan) and Catholic Charities USA? Where is your clear and unambiguous response to these problems, Most Reverend Bishops? I have to get up and go to work every morning to do my job; can we ask the same of you?