Judge will hold Obama administration to its pledge to modify HHS mandate

[jwinch2]

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1932/USCCB_on_new_HHS_regs_Were_studying_them.aspx

Responding to today’s announcement from the Obama administration that certain exceptions may be made for religious institutions in the implementation of the HHS mandate on contraception and abortion insurance coverage, the USCCB released a brief statement this afternoon:

In response to today’s release of revised regulations for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, provided the following statement on behalf of the USCCB.

“Today, the Administration issued proposed regulations regarding the HHS mandate. We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely. We look forward to issuing a more detailed statement later.”

The Catholic blogosphere, on the other hand, has been considerably less circumspect about the new proposed regulations. Deacon Greg Kandra has a good round-up of reactions here. While many object to the new regulations failing to provide exemptions for for-profit employers unwilling to pay for contraception coverage, some are arguing that even many religious non-profits will not qualify. EWTN president Michael Warsaw says his legal team doesn’t believe EWTN will be exempt under the new regulations:

We have analyzed today’s notice with our legal team from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the initial conclusions are not promising. First, this is simply a notice of a proposed rule; it is not an actual rule that changes anything. Second, while the proposed rules might expand the mandate’s religious exemption for some organizations affiliated directly with the Church, it does not appear that EWTN will qualify for this exemption. Third, the proposed rules have not dealt with the concerns of self-insured health plans like EWTN’s. Today’s notice from the government simply kicks this can further down the road.

Matt Bowman, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues at Catholic Vote that Catholic institutions—such as hospitals and universities—are not exempt from providing contraception coverage under the proposed regulations, although churches and religious orders are. In a critique of the National Catholic Reporter’s Michael Sean Winters’ “endorsement” of the regs, Bowman writes:

First Winters says that the proposed rule eliminates the four-part religious exemption distinction, separating the church from her hospitals, universities, charities and other ministries. This is simply incorrect. The proposed rule continues to offer an exemption to churches and only churches, not to universities, hospitals, charities and other non-profits. The rule does eliminate the three requirements that churches must be self-focused. But it maintains the fourth requirement that only churches and religious orders are exempt–only those entities that do not file an IRS form 990 (an arbitrary and narrow category to use for this purpose). The proposed rule fully maintains the distinction that only churches, not their ministries, deserve an exemption.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=497

Last July I predicted that President Obama would offer a new “compromise” to soften Catholic opposition to the HHS mandate. My timing was wrong; I thought it would be a pre-election promise, a campaign ploy. But I think my analysis was fundamentally right.

Bottom line: Obama’s ultimate goal is not to preserve religious freedom, nor even to satisfy the concerns of conscientious Catholics. His ultimate goal is to divide the Catholic Church.

I actually disagree to some extent. I believe his goal is start the beginnings of forcing the Catholic Church out of the world of health care, etc. as we are already being forced out of our work in adoption services, fighting human trafficking, etc.

 

[pollylodges]

Story here:

nytimes.com/2013/02/02/us/politics/white-house-proposes-compromise-on-contraception-coverage.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130202&_r=0

 

[_Abyssinia]

Heard the cost for contraception and other objectionable drugs will still come around to the religious institution

The announcement yesterday did not address for profit employers

Becket fund

Today’s announcement of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the HHS mandate leaves the religious liberty of millions of Americans unprotected.

“Today’s proposed rule does nothing to protect the religious freedom of millions of Americans. For instance, it does nothing to protect the rights of family businesses like Hobby Lobby,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “The administration obviously realizes that the HHS mandate puts constitutional rights at risk. There would have been an easy way to resolve this—expanding the exemption—but the proposed rule expressly rejects that option.”

The proposed rule fails to fix the HHS mandate’s fundamental problems:

1. 
   *]The proposed rule provides no coverage for family businesses like Hobby Lobby.
   *]The proposed rule does not meaningfully expand the “church-only” exemption – which is the real relief that our clients are entitled to under our constitution.
   *]For other religious non-profits, HHS proposes a convoluted “accommodation” that may not resolve religious organizations’ objections to being coerced into providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees.
   *]Finally, the long-awaited rule provides no concrete guidance for religious groups that are self-insured.

1. 
   

   “We are extremely disappointed with today’s announcement. HHS waited nearly a year and then gave us a proposed rule that still burdens religious liberty. It also gives no concrete guidance to self-insured religious organizations like Wheaton College. Given that today’s proposed rule was prompted in part by the D.C. Circuit’s order in the Wheaton College case, that is a remarkable and surprising omission,” says Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “We remain committed to protecting religious liberty until the Administration recognizes the conscience rights of all Americans.”

   There are now 44 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate, and along with Hobby Lobby represents: Ave Maria University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, East Texas Baptist University, EWTN, Houston Baptist University, and Wheaton College.

   becketfund.org/hhsannouncement1

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I’m watching this issue closely.

I may pursue employment with a firm that doesn’t pay for the killing of unborn children…if I am able to. I’m praying for prudence if such a choice is set before me.

 

[jwinch2]

Archbishop Chaput weighs in.

catholicphilly.com/2013/02/think-tank/weekly-message-from-archbishop-chaput/making-sense-of-another-ambiguous-compromise/

On Friday, February 2, the Obama administration issued for public comment a set of revised regulations governing the HHS “contraceptive mandate.” At first glance, the new rules have struck some people as a modest improvement. They appear to expand, in a limited way, the kind of religiously-affiliated entities that can claim exemption from providing insurance coverage for contraceptive and abortion-related services under the new Affordable Care Act.

White House apologists and supporters have welcomed the proposal. The New York Times called it “a good compromise.” Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Prochoice America have praised it. And at least one Washington Post columnist implausibly called it a victory for America’s Catholic bishops.

The trouble is, the new rules are very complex. And they may actually make things worse. In the words of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley:

“Gauging the net effect of the new administration proposal [is] hazardous. But one can say with confidence the following: (1) religious hospitals are, as before, not exempt ‘religious employers’; (2) religious charities are very likely not exempt either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese’s Saint Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt ‘religious employer,’ whereas Catholic Charities would not be; (3) the new proposal may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools are exempt ‘religious employers.’ But Catholic high schools are a different matter. Some might qualify as ‘religious employers.’ Most probably will not.

“It is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify as exempt ‘religious employers.’ The new proposal includes, however, a revised ‘accommodation’ for at least some of these institutions, as well as some hospitals and charities. The proposal refines the administration’s earlier efforts to somehow insulate the colleges and universities from immoral complicity in contraception, mainly by shifting — at least nominally – the cost and administration of the immoral services to either the health insurance issuer (think Blue Cross) or to the plan administrator (for self-insured entities, such as Notre Dame). This proposal adds some additional layering to the earlier attempts to insulate the schools, but nothing of decisive moral significance is included.”

The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise” is minimalist.

As a result, the latest White House “compromise” already has a wave of critics, including respected national religious liberty law firms like the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom. And many are far harsher than Professor Bradley in their analysis.

The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience.” In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation.”

One of the issues America’s bishops now face is how best to respond to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely flawed. In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included, will need both prudence and courage – the kind of courage that gives prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost. Please pray that God guides our discussions.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

 

[jwinch2]

Catholic Bishops to Obama: “HHS Proposal Falls Short”

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=42155

“The Administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries.

“It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education and Catholic charities.

“HHS offers what it calls an ‘accommodation’ rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”

“And finally, it seems to take away something that we had previously—the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.”

 

[BroomWagon]

Plus looks like Lifenews is reporting, in a nutshell, REI gets an exemption but not Catholic/Christian Companies/Institutions.

Revelations have come out today that Sally Jewell, President Obama’s nominee for Interior Secretary, received an Obamacare waiver for her company’s firm.

This comes as pro-life groups and religious organizations are unable to get a broad conscience exemption from the Obama administration to opt out of the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

As the Washington Examiner reports:

The controversial waivers were issued to select companies after Obama’s health care reform bill passed in 2008, temporarily excusing them from the Obamacare health insurance mandates.

As Michelle Malkin noted in her May 2011 column, **Jewell participated in an Obama administration roundtable in 2009 to talk about the benefits of health care reform.**

**After the roundtable meeting, President Obama praised the REI health plan for covering both part-time and full-time employees.**

lifenews.com/2013/02/07/obama-interior-secretary-nominees-firm-got-obamacare-waiver/

If she goes through hearings, I hope this is covered strongly.