Not exactly an accommodation

Controversial HHS mandate modification still violates religious freedom
Barrack Obama and Sandra Fluke (from Reuters)

Barack Obama and Sandra Fluke (from Reuters)

The following comes from a July 10 Catholic News Agency article by Matt Hadro:

In its latest update to the federal contraception mandate, the Obama administration on Friday finalized a set of proposed rules which the U.S. bishops have previously said still violate religious freedom.

A statement released Friday by Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia M. Burwell said that the measures balance the government’s goal of providing free contraceptives to women with “respecting religious beliefs” of employers who object to them.

The HHS mandate was first issued in 2012 as part of the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to offer employee health plans that included free sterilization and contraception, including some drugs that can cause early abortions.

Many religious non-profits and business owners objected to the mandate on the grounds that it forced them to cooperate in practices they believe to be morally wrong. More than 300 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits challenging the mandate; the majority of cases have been granted preliminary injunctions protecting them against it.

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other “closely-held” for-profit employers who objected to the mandate.

Responding to the lawsuits and widespread criticism, the Obama administration has released a series of modifications to the mandate. Earlier revisions instructed religious organizations to authorize third-party insurers and administrators to provide the coverage which they found objectionable. Many groups said this still forced them to violate their beliefs by requiring them to authorize the provision of things they found immoral.

The latest “accommodation” allows religious non-profits who object to the mandate to send a written notice of their objection directly to the Department of Health and Human Services, who in turn will inform the insurers and third-party administrators of the objection. Separate payments will then be made to the enrollees for the coverage at “no additional cost” to the employer.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling that Hobby Lobby and similar companies could not be forced to comply with the mandate, the Department of Health and Human Services also announced Friday that closely-held for-profit businesses would still be subject to the mandate, but under the same “accommodation” as religious non-profits.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed this new accommodation when it was proposed in 2014, saying it still requires religious organizations to facilitate activity that violates their religious beliefs.

 

 

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. There is no longer an injunction protecting Priests for Life against the HHS Mandate; however, Fr. Frank Pavone will not compromise in any way. The government will have to fine and tax Priests for Life to death.

  2. Canisius says:

    2 of the worst human beings ….ever

    • Joel, “…tax Priests for Life to death” got me thinking that it might be better to refuse to pay fines and move the protest inside the jails to overflowing.

  3. To all the Catholics who voted for Barack Hussein Obama: Are you proud that you voted for this pro-abortion, pro-contraception anti-Catholic president. He showed his true colors during his first term, but you re-elected him. Why?

  4. I’m surprised that the Obama administration doesn’t simply argue that plenty of Catholic agencies and colleges already provide contraception in their employee/student health plans and these agencies see no problem with it. Bp. (then) Cordileone even admitted in the diocesean paper that Catholic Charities East Bay provides contraception for its employees–a fact that was pointed out/exposed on this very website! I guess people don’t see how this hypocrisy hurts the witness of the Church or why our freedoms are lost.

  5. Elizabeth says:

    Are we surprised? I think not!! And they always release their nasty business on a Friday, what cowards!!!

  6. Michael McDermott says:

    COPY AND PASTE THE STATEMENT BELOW INTO THIS WEB FORM:

    It is dangerous to eliminate the ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men, who are at high risk of contracting and transmitting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

    Abandoning the current, proven policy would be:

    1. Unsafe: The HIV test cannot claim unmistakable accuracy in detecting HIV-infected blood nor can blood agencies claim human error cannot occur anywhere in the donor-to-recipient process.
    2. Unnecessary: There are enough blood donors who do not engage in sex practices that are at high risk for HIV — there is no blood donor “problem” to fix.
    3. Antithetical to blood safety goals: The goal of a 100% safe blood supply must first and foremost be the health and…

    • Michael McDermott says:

      The goal of a 100% safe blood supply must first and foremost be the health and safety of recipients’ blood units, not the claimed “rights” of donors, to satisfy a special-interest agenda.

      Please abandon your proposal to place at risk the nation’s blood supply. Place blood recipients’ interests above the demands of a small number of potential donors. Your vitally-important decision affects my personal safety and the safety of my family members should any of us should require a blood transfusion. Remember that blood donation is a privilege, not a right.

      http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2015-D-1211-0001

      commenting on:
      The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Notice: Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of…

  7. John Feeney says:

    This it what happens when there is an anti-Catholic bigot in the White House! People who claim to be Catholic voted for him!

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.