Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs

[Ridgerunner]

No, Obamacare must be rooted out in its entirety. I see no reason that I should be forced to cover such practices merely because I am not a religious hospital.

And we have not even gotten to the death panels yet.

I agree that Obamacare has to be rooted out in its entirety. It gives incredible power to the executive, and we have just seen the kind of mischief they can cause at will. With one regulation they have simultaneously oppressed religion, raised insurance premiums and engaged in de facto gender discrimination.

Does anybody really think a concession this time around would be the end of it? It wouldn’t even end that particular issue. In 2013, Obama could just order it again, and worse.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Indeed. This is why I left the Episcopal church. My conversion story is too long to post here, but I grew up nothing (any religion was heavily discouraged by my father), attended an Assembly of God in high school, and on/off AoG and others until about 2001. I then searched again (the Catholic church never even crossed my mind), and fell in love with the liturgy at the Episcopal church.

But what drove me away from the Episcopal church wasn’t the service, the people, etc. It was their wishy-washy stance on everything. I remember in my pre-confirmation classes the instructor saying “We Anglicans define ourselves by the liturgy and fellowship. It is the center of everything, and we don’t get caught up in differences of opinion on political issues.” When I asked for clarification, he indicated that issues such as abortion, euthanasia, etc were “personal choices” and the church wouldn’t take a stance.

This position bothered me. I went to the rector, and she handed me a book called the Social Teachings in the Episcopal Church (see this link). In it, I found much more clarity. When I returned it to the rector, she told me not to get too caught up in it. I asked about the 39 articles at back of the Book of Common Prayer. Again, I was told not to put too much stock into them. What mattered was that we all participated in the liturgy.

I knew then the Episcopal church wasn’t for me. And the ordination of Eugene Robinson cemented the deal.

Now, if the Catholic leadership makes the same mistake as my rector, there will be no place for Catholics of conscience to find refuge. I am praying that the Bishops and all the clergy find the moral strength to stand up for the Truth regardless of any potential backlash.

Thanks for sharing your story.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree that Obamacare has to be rooted out in its entirety. It gives incredible power to the executive, and we have just seen the kind of mischief they can cause at will. With one regulation they have simultaneously oppressed religion, raised insurance premiums and engaged in de facto gender discrimination.

Does anybody really think a concession this time around would be the end of it? It wouldn’t even end that particular issue. In 2013, Obama could just order it again, and worse.

You put your finger on exactly my fear: that the bishops will be bought off with some minor policy concession on this point, perhaps one that temporarily exempts a wider range of “religious” institutions.

Calling this a matter of conscience is like saying a government program that dictates eating pizza is only a problem if you don’t like the required toppings.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You put your finger on exactly my fear: that the bishops will be bought off with some minor policy concession on this point, perhaps one that temporarily exempts a wider range of “religious” institutions.

Calling this a matter of conscience is like saying a government program that dictates eating pizza is only a problem if you don’t like the required toppings.

Thanks you guys. It seems to me that the healthcare bill went too far and didn’t address the real issues.

If the federal government needs to get into healthcare it should be at the minimum level for those that can’t help themselves. I.e. someone whose unemployed for catastrophic events.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks you guys. It seems to me that the healthcare bill went too far and didn’t address the real issues.

If the federal government needs to get into healthcare it should be at the minimum level for those that can’t help themselves. I.e. someone whose unemployed for catastrophic events.

Governments have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Providing access to healthcare is a good thing.

On the other side, there is never a justification for any government to provide inmmoral services and immoral products to its citizens.

This is where some Catholics don’t get it. They’re so stuck on defending their “freedom” that they forget that this freedom is a means to an end. The end is to ensure that government always complies with moral law, not that government supports the immoral.

It is immoral to provide these services and products.

It is immoral to oblige anyone to pay for them.

It is immoral to violate religious freedom.

What part is it that some Catholics don’t get?

You can’t let the government do what is immoral, regardless if you’re the only Catholic in the country. Even if that were the case, the fact that the rest are not Catholic does not give them the right to buy and sell what is immoral and it does not give government the right to force you to be the middle man in the transaction, which is what the employer becomes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Nimzovik]

Yet Catholics will overwhelmingly support him in his bid for re-election. I just don’t get it.

Hmmmmmm… With all the press lately … I wonder if the sleeping Catholic giant will awaken?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Governments have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Providing access to healthcare is a good thing.

On the other side, there is never a justification for any government to provide inmmoral services and immoral products to its citizens.

The moral lesson of the day is that you won’t ever have one without the other. If you delegate provision of welfare to a secular government you will get a secular solution.

The alternative is for the Catholic Church to become a provider of welfare, e.g. by having Catholic hospitals provide free health care to the poor, rather than a subcontractor to the state.

 

[Suudy]

Governments have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of their citizens. Providing access to healthcare is a good thing.

Not to derail too much, but I disagree with the term ‘provide’. Government’s primary role is to guarantee the security “of individual freedom and private property” (see Centesimus Annus). The state may step in on a temporary basis to provide supplemental functions, but such intervention must be as brief as possible. Thus the government’s proper role is no to provide access to healthcare, but to ensure access to healthcare. And I agree that providing access to healthcare is a good thing, but the means must be legitimate.

 

[Rence]

The moral lesson of the day is that you won’t ever have one without the other. If you delegate provision of welfare to a secular government you will get a secular solution.

The alternative is for the Catholic Church to become a provider of welfare, e.g. by having Catholic hospitals provide free health care to the poor, rather than a subcontractor to the state.

I don’t think they can afford that. Healthcare is crazy-costly. Even non-profit hospitals have to meet the bottom line and meet the costs of operation. They would have to hire an all-voluntary staff, and get donations for supplies and goods.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I don’t think they can afford that. Healthcare is crazy-costly. Even non-profit hospitals have to meet the bottom line and meet the costs of operation. They would have to hire an all-voluntary staff, and get donations for supplies and goods.

You do realize that there many practices would take a bath if they took medicare/medicade patients because you have to follow the government’s rules.

 

[Rence]

You do realize that there many practices would take a bath if they took medicare/medicade patients because you have to follow the government’s rules.

I’m not sure what you mean by the above, but I do realize that if you take medicare/medicaid patients (which is administered by the government) then yes, you have to follow their rules.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think they can afford that. Healthcare is crazy-costly. Even non-profit hospitals have to meet the bottom line and meet the costs of operation. They would have to hire an all-voluntary staff, and get donations for supplies and goods.

Well, this is certainly the thinking that has led the Church to delegate charity, and along with it, moral authority, to the state.

There is certainly a perception that the government has more money but obviously that only works so long as nobody notices $1T-plus annual deficits.

 

[Rence]

Well, this is certainly the thinking that has led the Church to delegate charity, and along with it, moral authority, to the state.

There is certainly a perception that the government has more money but obviously that only works so long as nobody notices $1T-plus annual deficits.

The thing is, the government does have more money because it has the authority to tax citizens. The Church only can rely on gifts and donations…

 

[JReducation]

The moral lesson of the day is that you won’t ever have one without the other. If you delegate provision of welfare to a secular government you will get a secular solution.

The alternative is for the Catholic Church to become a provider of welfare, e.g. by having Catholic hospitals provide free health care to the poor, rather than a subcontractor to the state.

That’s what we had in this country until healthcare became cost prohibitive with the explosion of new technologies, the demands for higher salaries and benefits for hospital employees and just the cost of maintaining a hospital building.

We still have that in other countries where the costs is not as expensive as in the USA. Many lay groups and religious communities run hospitals and other healthcare facilities in other countries. But it’s affordable there.

Not to derail too much, but I disagree with the term ‘provide’. Government’s primary role is to guarantee the security “of individual freedom and private property” (see Centesimus Annus). The state may step in on a temporary basis to provide supplemental functions, but such intervention must be as brief as possible. Thus the government’s proper role is no to provide access to healthcare, but to ensure access to healthcare. And I agree that providing access to healthcare is a good thing, but the means must be legitimate.

My wording was poor, but I believe that we’re on the same page. “Ensure” is probably a better word. The Church has always said that the government has to look after the poor. Medical care is one of the many needs of the poor. She has been saying this more and more since Pope John XXIII.

Whether the government ensures that there are services that the poor can access, it does not give the government the right to us to pay for or impose immoral practices and products.

I know a Catholic employer. He’s very upset. He owns a small company. He and his employees have families. He has never provided insurance coverage for sterilization, contraception and abortifacient drugs. He sat down with the rep and chose the insurance package that he found morally tenable. Now, he is upset. If he does not pay into one of these packages by August 1, he’s in trouble with the law. If he drops the insurance, he’s in trouble with the law and he may lose his employees. If he buys the policy as HHS says it should be, he is buying an immoral product. He’s about ready to close his company. He’s an OFS (Order of Franciscans Secular) and they do not do anything that the bishops and the Holy Father oppose.

People should not be put in these situations. These private entrepreneurs who are moral are being put on the spot. They’re not being given the one year waiting period and their faith is not being respected.

They have to choose to go with this or pay the piper. Many of them feel trapped by the state and they’re angry. Now they have employees demanding that the employer provide this coverage, because the law says so. The employer is saying, “It’s immoral and I won’t do it.”

There are going to be some martyrs in this situation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure what you mean by the above, but I do realize that if you take medicare/medicaid patients (which is administered by the government) then yes, you have to follow their rules.

Not exactly. If you accept Medicaid and Medicare patients, you must follow their rules as to what you charge and the treatments and medications that you may prescribe. You are not obliged to prescribe contraceptives, perform sterilizations, or the morning after pill.

Medicaid and Medicare only regulate the services that the doctor or hospital normally provide, not the ones that they do not provide. They have never forced hospitals or doctors to provide services of any kind. They review what the doctor prescribes and they review the treatment plan.

If sterilization is not in the treatment plan, then it does not fall under review.

Medicaid and Medicare have been making exceptions for Jehovah Witnesses for years, as well as Christian Scientists and Quakers who refuse certain medical treatments. Under the usual and customary rules, if you refuse treatment, the insurance provider, even Medicaid and Medicare does not have to cover your expenses, because you’re a non compliant patient. Yet, these groups are allowed to refuse things like transfusions and are still covered. We have had religious exemptions in Medicaid and Medicare.

I’ll give you an example from my own family. My sister was terminally ill. The doctor wanted to take her feeding tube. Her family objected on moral grounds. The doctor had to leave the feeding tube in and Medicare continued to pay for her care, even though the doctor went on record as “contraindicated”. Contrary to the doctor’s prediction, she was not a death’s door. She did die, but several months later.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m not sure what you mean by the above, but I do realize that if you take medicare/medicaid patients (which is administered by the government) then yes, you have to follow their rules.

Meaning that it’s cheaper in many cases to treat them for free, then to go through all the bother sending your staff to mandatory training, having the right computer systems, doing all the paperwork.

 

[Suudy]

That’s what we had in this country until healthcare became cost prohibitive with the explosion of new technologies, the demands for higher salaries and benefits for hospital employees and just the cost of maintaining a hospital building.

Some factors I’ve think you’ve left out include mandates (not just this one from HHS, but the variety of others that the states impose), malpractice (it’s for more than just doctors–institutions have it as well), and government regulation. CAHI issued a report for the 2000+ mandates and determined it causes up to a 50% increase in premiums. The UPI reported that defensive medicine make up 33% of all medical costs. And that doesn’t even include malpractice premiums. And this report shows that just in California, almost 33% of the state’s GDP was consumed by regulatory compliance (granted, all regulations, not just medical).

Think of the savings if the government got out of the way and let health care providers do what they do best–providing health-care.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s what we had in this country until healthcare became cost prohibitive with the explosion of new technologies, the demands for higher salaries and benefits for hospital employees and just the cost of maintaining a hospital building.

I’m pretty sure we’ve had the same discussion with respect to education, but here is the thing:

Yes, costs for Catholic hospitals have gone up, primarily salaries, but also materials and equipment.

But guess what? So have the salaries of Catholics, generally! In other words, the donor base has increased right along with the costs.

What you offer us is nothing but a sad excuse of the most unimaginative nature.

You said, “Governments have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of their citizens.”

But how can “governments” have a moral duty that Catholics do not have? Why are you so willing to demand more of secularists than of Catholics? And why should anyone be surprised that when the Church relies on secular institutions to fulfill moral duties that they fulfill them in secular, even anti-Catholic ways?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama VS. Religious Liberty: 5 More important updates (Updated V/video)

1. By my updated count, over 70% of bishops who head dioceses in the U.S. have spoken out against the mandate (131 of 184). I think we’ll pass 75% this weekend easily as more and more bishops join the movement.
2. CNSNews reports that White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed there was “no constitutional rights issue” when questioned about the mandate. This coming from the administration that just lost their religious liberty argument 9-0 at the Supreme Court.

UPDATE — here is the video:

youtube.com/watch?v=VWIrDNvho4w&feature=player_embedded

At one point he says: “I would also just note that our robust partnerships with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith will continue.” — I wouldn’t be so sure.

The Commonweal blog has a full transcript of both times the issue came up in the press briefing. Some clues are beginning to emerge about the Obama’s administration’s attitude towards the Catholic counter-reaction, but more on that from me later.

1. This is not just a Catholic issue (something we have to stress). The Becket Fund has released a statement from Protestant and Jewish leaders: “We Stand with Catholics“:

Today, more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations including Protestant-affiliated colleges, National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, sent a letter to the White House demanding religious protection against the newly issued HHS contraceptive mandate.

“We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity.” Says the coalition letter. “Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”

More coverage of this letter from Baptist Press.

1. GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich spoke out against the Obama/HHS mandate in an email distributed by Human Events:
   
   “Last week, the Obama administration finalized a radical new rule that uses the health care law to require all health insurance providers to cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization as well as contraception, all free of charge,” Gingrich writes. “The administration based the rule’s “religious exemption” on a provision drafted by the ACLU, applying the rule even to religious organizations such as Catholic schools, hospitals, universities and charities that oppose such things as a matter of religious belief.” Continue reading]

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney included this line in his acceptance speech last night after winning the Florida primary: “President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience. I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom.”

1. It’s important during critical moments such as these to remember our history. Obamacare was amended to authorize HHS to make this coercive decision back on December 3rd, 2009 through the passage of the Mikulski Amendment (#2791) in the U.S. Senate.

Republican Senators Snowe, Collins and Vitter voted for that amendment, helping ensure passage (all other GOP senators voted NO). All Democrat Senators (except Ben Nelson who went on to vote for Obamacare and help it pass) voted YES on the amendment.

The Senators who voted YES on the Mikulski Amendment and voted YES on Obamacare played a special role in authorizing HHS to make this bad decision. When Catholics and pro-lifers warned that passing this amendment would result in precisely this sort of coercion taking place down the road, these Senators ignored us. We should remember that when they all come up for reelection.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25865

 

[InLight247]

Here are the list of bishops who spoke up against HHS:
**catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591 **

These bishops would rather go to jail than comply to the immoral law.

There is a call of fasting for our bishops this Friday. Only fruits and vegetables.

I received an email as follows:

There is a group in America proposing a national fast for our catholic bishops, this Friday. So far, 5,000 have pledged. With the bishops taking a strong stand against our government regarding the conscience clause imposed by the HHS, you can bet this will explode into a huge all out assault on the catholic church, especially our bishops. Please join!!

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591