Catholic Health to Obama, HHS: No contraception compromise

[catharina]

Finally and at long last,
and thank You, dear Lord!

Sr. Carol Keehan has withdrawn her support
of obamacare after TWO years of constant support of it.
I’ve written and resported to Sister’s superiors in the USA
and in Paris and ditto to the priest-Superior who oversees all
Daughters of Charity in the world at their CM (Vincentian) Generalate
in Rome. This change feels like a miracle to me.

[content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/06/obama-catholic-obamacare-birth-control/1](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/06/obama-catholic-obamacare-birth-control/1)

"President Obama's support for his signature health care act took a fresh hit Friday. The Catholic Health Association, the nation's largest private health care provider, has rebuffed the latest White House moves to make its contraception coverage mandate more acceptable to Catholics and conservative evangelicals, according to Religion News Service.

The CHA was a critical voice in getting the Affordable Care Act passed in 2009. Sister Carol Keehan, head of CHA, drew standing ovations from progressive Catholics.

I wrote then about how Keehan and nearly 60 other nuns and leaders of religious orders found the legislation's numerous anti-abortion funding provisions were indeed sufficient. Their statement that the reform was "life affirming" legislation, gave pro-life Catholic legislators enough cover to allow them to vote for the bill.

Keehan was greeted like a rock star on a visit to Washington and named to Time magazine's Top 100 most influential people. Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was sputtering mad over the CHA action, arguing that protections to avoid taxpayer funding of abortion was inadequate in the ACA.

But the ACA also contained provisions for the Department of Health and Human Services to establish what kinds of essential preventative health care must be offered in all insurance plans without co-payments.

When HHS and the Obama Administration came out with the contraception-coverage-with-no-co-pays requirement it caused a firestorm among Catholic bishops and the doctrine-minded faithful. It offered no exception for faith-based organizations and institutions that offered services other than prayer, worship and religious education for co-believers.

The Obama administration came back with a modification that would let faith-based schools, colleges, hospitals and charities avoid directly paying the bills but require their insurers to pick up the tab.

That went nowhere with the bishops and their evangelical allies at the Becket Fund. Both groups say the core problem is that government should not be in the business of defining who is “religious” enough to have a religious exemption on matters of conscience.

Obama supporters and progressives say the conservatives are waging a war on women and their legal right to control their own health care.

Now, however, the Keehan’s influential CHA has joined forces with the bishops. David Gibson, writing for Religion News Service, has the story Friday that Keehan and other CHA leaders sent a five-page letter to HHS saying, in part:

…" Look at link for more info.

FINALLY -
and thank God and our Blessed Mother for this!!!

Blessed be God.

 

[catharina]

"Washington D.C., Jun 15, 2012 / 05:12 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a call for broader religious exemptions, the Catholic Health Association has backtracked from its initial support for the Obama administration’s compromise on a rule that mandates employer coverage of contraception and sterilization.

The association said it is “imperative” that the administration abandon its “narrow” definition of religious employer and exempt not only churches but also Catholic hospitals, health care organizations and other Church ministries.

It said it is “deeply concerned” by the administration’s approach to “contraceptive services, especially abortifacient drugs and sterilization.”

The Catholic Health Association represents over 600 hospitals and 1,400 other health facilities in all 50 U.S. states. It is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the U.S.

The June 15 letter from CHA president and CEO Sister Carol Keehan and other association board members addressed the Department of Health and Human Services about the proposed rulemaking to implement the Obama administration’s intended accommodation announced on Feb. 10.

However, when the accommodation was initially presented, Sr. Keehan said in a Feb. 10 statement that the Catholic Health Association was “very pleased” with the White House’s proposal and that it “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”

“The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed,” she said.

“We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished,” Sr. Keehan stated.

The CHA statement was circulated by a White House official before the Obama administration announced the proposed accommodation, a fact that prompted speculation the CHA had (name removed by moderator)ut into the proposal.

But in its June 15 letter, the CHA changed its tone. It said the announcement had seemed to be “a good first step” but further study “has not relieved our initial concerns.”

The HHS mandate requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs, as “preventive care” for women. Its religious exemption applies only to employers whose primary purpose is the inculcation of religious values and who primarily employ and serve co-religionists.

Catholics and other believers have objected that the exemption does not include many religious employers such as health care systems, colleges, and charities.

Initial outcry after the Jan. 20 announcement of the mandate caused the Obama administration to propose that insurance companies, not employers, be required to provide the coverage.

The proposed accommodation was deemed unacceptable by the U.S. bishops and many legal experts, college professors and religious freedom advocates from a variety of political and religious backgrounds.

The CHA’s June 15 letter reiterated the association’s support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which gave the Department of Health and Human Services the power to mandate the controversial coverage.

The association said it had objected “strenuously” to the narrow definition of religious employer in September 2011 when the mandate was being formulated.

Its letter does not mention the conscience rights of objecting Catholic employers who run secular businesses, though the general counsel of the U.S. bishops conference has noted this problem.

The association said that if the government intends to provide access to contraceptive services to all employees, it should “find a way to provide and pay for these services directly without requiring any direct or indirect involvement of ‘religious employers,’ as broadly defined.”

The Catholic Health Association was a major backer of the 2010 health care legislation. Sr. Keehan received one of the pens that President Obama used to sign the bill into law as a token of thanks. The bishops opposed the bill on several grounds, including what they said was a lack of sufficient safeguards against abortion funding."

catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic-health-association-reverses-course-on-mandate-accommodation/

Blessed be God!
This agony has ended.
Long and ugly journey has come to an end.

O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

[_Abyssinia]

 

[Dale_M]

Here is a link to the Catholic Hospital Association letter

chausa.org/WorkArea//DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9239

And here is the broader definition of “religious employer” which the CHA supports

(IV) (B)(1) For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is

(a) a church or a convention or association of churches (hereinafter
included within the term “church”) which is exempt from tax under 26 USC
§ 501; or

(b) an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, which is
either controlled by or associated with a church.

CHA also adds supplemental definitions:

(2) For purposes of this subsection

(a) The term “church” includes a religious order or religious organization if
such order or organization (1) is an integral part of a church, and (2) is
engaged in carrying out the functions of a church, whether a civil law
corporation or otherwise.

(b) An organization is associated with a church if it

 

[St_Francis]

I see two ponts being ignored: 1. that catholic employers who are *not *in a charitable business would be forced to pay for something against their conscience, and 2. the government wants women not to have to pay for child-prevention, but gives no special aid to women *having *children.

What a world we’ve created!

 

[Miriam1947]

The signers of the letter:

Sr. Carol Keehan, DC
President and CEO

Robert V. Stanek
2011-2012 CHA Board Chairperson

Joseph R. Swedish
2012-2013 CHA Board Chairperson

I wonder why the change these many months later?

 

[Dale_M]

I see two ponts being ignored: 1. that catholic employers who are *not *in a charitable business would be forced to pay for something against their conscience, and 2. the government wants women not to have to pay for child-prevention, but gives no special aid to women *having *children.

The article cited in the first post did mention your first point. It stated that the USCCB has advocated for this more expansive coverage. Whether that is politically feasible, I don’t know. But it does seem outside the scope of the Catholic Hospital Association, which is primarily concerned with organizations which provide health care.

The second point you raise sounds interesting, although I am a little unsure of what you mean. What sort of special aid to pregnant women, which is currently excluded, would you like to see added to the health care policy?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sister Carol Keehan is awesome!

Her expertise and experience working for over 30 years in the health-field, especially helping the poor to get health care, has provided us with a voice of wisdom and understanding on this issue.

I support any decision she makes in this area.

Jim

 

[catharina]

Sister Carol Keehan is awesome!

Her expertise and experience working for over 30 years in the health-field, especially helping the poor to get health care, has provided us with a voice of wisdom and understanding on this issue.

I support any decision she makes in this area.

Jim

I support the Church, the bishops and now that Carol K has
re-aligned herself with the teachings of the Church, I can support
her too. Always, the Church and her teachings come first, IMO,
not the grave misdirection that Carol K spearheaded for TWO years.

The two years of agony and shame she has spread
throughout the Catholics in this nation are beyond my understanding.

As of now and her changed POV? Blessed be GOD!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I support the Church, the bishops and now that Carol K has
re-aligned herself with the teachings of the Church, I can support
her too. Always, the Church and her teachings come first, IMO,
not the grave misdirection that Carol K spearheaded for TWO years.

The two years of agony and shame she has spread
throughout the Catholics in this nation are beyond my understanding.

As of now and her changed POV? Blessed be GOD!

Sister Keehan was never out of line with the teachings of the Church. She was in fact working on the compromise the Bishops were seeking with the administration, but she was unable to get it, which is why she rejected it.

She’s in the trenches working in health care. The bishops listen to her more than you realize.

Jim

 

[catharina]

Sister Keehan was never out of line with the teachings of the Church. She was in fact working on the compromise the Bishops were seeking with the administration, but she was unable to get it, which is why she rejected it.

She’s in the trenches working in health care. The bishops listen to her more than you realize.

Jim

Remember the act of signing the health-care bill?
Carol was way out of line when she cheered obama on
WITHOUT concrete assurances of freedom of conscience.

Of course the bishops listen to her. Who can avoid it?

She became a PUBLIC albatross hanging from the necks
of All faithful Catholics. She was far more an impediment to
the Faith than Biden and Pelosi combined - because Carol
is a Catholic religious Sister. I can only rejoice that finally,
she has reversed herself.

Blessed be God for that fact!!!

 

[PaulinVA]

Here is a link to the Catholic Hospital Association letter

chausa.org/WorkArea//DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9239

And here is the broader definition of “religious employer” which the CHA supports

CHA also adds supplemental definitions:

The problem is that these definitions still force Catholic and other business owners to provide birth control to their employees.

If you can’t force a religious employer to act against it’s conschience, then you can’t force an individual owner, either.

 

[_Abyssinia]

UPDATED – Hey CHA: Catholics who run non-religious businesses are people, too.

Sister Carol Keehan utterly, tragically misses the point.

With analysis by CV blogger Matt Bowman the Cardinal Newman Society reports that the Catholic Health Association and its leader, Sister Carol, have proposed that the HHS mandate be expanded to exempt religious institutions according to the same criteria that the IRS uses for religious tax exemptions.

CNS gets into reasons why this is still not good enough as a defense of religious liberty, but even they don’t go broad enough.

Some close Catholic friends of mine run a small, but successful, business. They have non-Catholic employees. In fact, apart from family members, I’m pretty sure only one of their dozen or so employees is Catholic. What they make money doing cannot in any way be construed to be a Church-related enterprise—they build cabinets. (Rather fine ones, if I do say so myself.) The cabinets go to schools, hospitals, doctors’ offices, stores, libraries, corporate office buildings, universities, the like.

After the HHS mandate was imposed upon us from on high one of the co-owners asked me more than once what it meant for them. Was their any way it would not affect them? What could they do to avoid the tough moral question? The insurance plan they buy into for themselves and their employees does not cover morally offensive services and items like abortifacients, sterilization, and contraceptives. To my knowledge, none of their employees pointedly complained about this. Now, because of the HHS mandate, they are forced to choose between dropping health insurance or offering a plan that covers those offensive services.

My employer, Franciscan University of Steubenville, was one of 43 Catholic institutions to who filed suit on May 21 to have the HHS mandate tossed out, but the basis of our complaint was the religious nature of Franciscan University of Steubenville. Our complaint was that the “religious exemption” written into the mandate is so narrow as to exclude organizations like Franciscan University.

That is the appropriate legal course of action for Franciscan—our mission and purpose dictate that such is our problem with the mandate, so such is the foundation of our complaint.

But what about the private employers who are Catholic, like my dear friends, who have heretofore chosen, according to their Catholic consciences, not to cover such things? The CHA compromise leaves them out in the cold, ignores their religious liberty, disregards that they, too, are Catholic, and relegates them to second-class status.

Such an uncareful “compromise” could only come from someone whose first priority remains staying in the good graces with this most anti-Catholic of administrations, seeking to be the “good faith” bargainer, the middle ground. She/they think they’ve found a reasonable middle ground, since the IRS criteria seem to work just fine and is already part of federal law.

But under the IRS religious criteria Catholic for-profit employers with non-religious businesses do not qualify for exemption from the federal law in question. That’s perfectly fine for taxation purposes. It is wholly, tragically inadequate for religious liberty.

Sister Carol Keehan has probably done a whole lot of caring for whole lots of people over the years. Truly tragic that she cannot think prudently and bring herself to care for the religious liberty of all persons more than for her own agenda and position in this incredibly important fight for the soul of this country.

In that failure she participates in crushing religious liberty for real people, like my dear friends. I pray she sees her way clearly before it is too late.

But more topically, I pray the mandate is tossed—whether by a total overturn of Obamacare this month or by the successful conclusion of other lawsuits that specifically target the mandate.

—-

UPDATE: I had forgotten this, but Catholic Vote sued Kathleen Sebelius on behalf of a private employer for this precise reason. From the post…

Our lawsuit was filed in St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of Frank O’Brien and his corporation – and is the first legal challenge to be brought against the new HHS mandate on behalf of a private business

.

Mr. O’Brien employs 87 people, and has dedicated his manufacturing business to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He is a faithful Catholic and objects to the government forcing him and his company to pay for medicines and procedures he believes are immoral.

Religious freedom for all! Not just the few.

Indeed.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=31466

 

[JimR-OCDS]

catharina

Remember the act of signing the health-care bill?
Carol was way out of line when she cheered obama on
WITHOUT concrete assurances of freedom of conscience.

Remember the Bishops approved the AHC bill ?

Sister Keehan, being in the trenches of heath care, was ahead of the Bishops on this and of course she approved it, when it was first inacted.

As it is, I believe the administration is going to force the HHS Secretary to change the mandate, because of Sister Keehan.

Without her, the Bishops would end up with a costly lawsuit that they’ll lose.

Of course the bishops listen to her. Who can avoid it?

The listen to her because of her expertise. She’s not just talking political rhetoric, but knows the field of health care law, which the Bishops and their counselors do not.

She became a PUBLIC albatross hanging from the necks
of All faithful Catholics.

No she didn’t. She became an advocate for people who have no health insurance but need health care. It’s what Christ would have her do.

She was far more an impediment to
the Faith than Biden and Pelosi combined - because Carol
is a Catholic religious Sister. I can only rejoice that finally,
she has reversed herself.

Please explain how sister Keehan is an impediment to the Faith, by being and advocate for the poor?

Rhetoric on Catholic political issues, isn’t what helps the poor, but those who work in the service of them, like Sister Keehan.

Jim

 

[Miriam1947]

Sister is giving Obama a way out. So he can backtrack and maybe avoid a decision by the Supremes.

I don’t trust her. (This is my personal opinion only but, I am not overly fond of any nuns who are so political)

 

[catharina]

catharina

Remember the Bishops approved the AHC bill ?

Sister Keehan, being in the trenches of heath care, was ahead of the Bishops on this and of course she approved it, when it was first inacted.

As it is, I believe the administration is going to force the HHS Secretary to change the mandate, because of Sister Keehan.

1. Without her, the Bishops would end up with a costly lawsuit that they’ll lose.

The listen to her because of her expertise. She’s not just talking political rhetoric, but knows the field of health care law, which the Bishops and their counselors do not.

2. No she didn’t. She became an advocate for people who have no health insurance but need health care. It’s what Christ would have her do.

**3. ** Please explain how sister Keehan is an impediment to the Faith, by being and advocate for the poor?

Rhetoric on Catholic political issues, isn’t what helps the poor, but those who work in the service of them, like Sister Keehan.

Jim

1. Until NOW, she has served to BLOCK the bishops’ appeal.
   Oh goodie - she will cease and desist. Yippee?
2. I am poor, disabled and have no health insurance.
   I have served the very poor for 40+ years.
   In soliciting service of poor - ALWAYS - morality comes first.
   It can NOT be an “oh - whatever - we’ll work it out” thing.
3. Being a Catholic advocate for the poor requires
   one keeping MORALITY in first place ALWAYS.

I find no moral fault in Carol's actions.  
Who am I to judge her.
Undoubtedly she was heavily influenced by secular colleagues.

However - I can and do state that I am grateful she has finally
removed herself from a position that could damage both the 
Church and her bishops.  For that, I thank GOD.

 

[Seeker1961]

Sister is giving Obama a way out. So he can backtrack and maybe avoid a decision by the Supremes.

I don’t trust her. (This is my personal opinion only but, I am not overly fond of any nuns who are so political)

How do you feel about political Bishops? Ours sent a video to all the parishes telling us exactly how to vote on 2 amendments that will be on the ballot this year. I have no issues with teaching about what is in the amendments to make sure people understand them, but when you say “I am urging all Catholics to vote Yes” I feel like a line has been crossed.

Teach people the truth, put your energy there and leave the decision making to them. If you have done your job, the decisions will take care of themselves.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

catharina

1. Until NOW, she has served to BLOCK the bishops’ appeal.

How did she do that and what appeal are you referring to, the lawsuit? That’s going forth without Sister’s interference. She’s actually working in parallel with it. Fact is, it’s gonna get thrown out because the suit had to do with the mandate before the first accommodation so the court will probably won’t even hear it.

1. I am poor, disabled and have no health insurance.
   I have served the very poor for 40+ years.
   In soliciting service of poor - ALWAYS - morality comes first.
   It can NOT be an “oh - whatever - we’ll work it out” thing.

And how is Sister Keehan being immoral?

1. Being a Catholic advocate for the poor requires
   one keeping MORALITY in first place ALWAYS.

Again, please specify how Sister Keehan has been immoral while serving the poor?

Jim

 

[the_phoenix]

Agreed.

And it’s about time.

 

[buffalo]

Why aren’t Catholic owned businesses never mentioned?