Letter from my Senator

[TarkanAttila]

I honestly don’t know where this particular letter would go - here or Catholic news. If it belongs somewhere else, please move it there. But I honestly thought this would be the best choice.

About a month ago I wrote an HHS mandate protest letter.

One of my senators, Ben Nelson, recently sent a letter in reply to it.

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S. 2043. I am pleased to let you know I am a co‑sponsor of a similar bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, S. 1467.

The contexts of these bills are based on the recently released requirements by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for new health insurance plans to cover certain preventive care services for women based on guidelines established by the Institute of Medicine. Included in these guidelines was coverage of services, such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and domestic violence screening and counseling, without co‑payments, co‑insurance or deductibles. The preventive health services guidelines would also mandate coverage for contraceptives, including some with which individuals and employers may have a moral or religious objection.

When releasing the preventive services rule, HHS proposed an exemption from this regulation for “religious employers,” and sought public comment on the definition as to which employers would qualify for this exemption. I believed this proposed exemption was not broad enough; and on September 30, 2011, I contacted HHS with my concerns as part of the comment period for the rulemaking process.

On February 10, 2012, the Administration proposed what they view as an accommodation for religious employers not covered by the exemption, which would require the religious organization’s insurer to offer contraceptive coverage to employees and cover the associated costs. While some religious organizations have stated they think this proposal will address their concerns, it remains unclear how this policy would impact self-insured religious organizations, such as the 11 Catholic hospitals in Nebraska, wherein the employer and the insurer are one and the same. I believe that individuals with a moral or religious objection to the use of contraceptives should have equal protections to those offered to employers.

The above-referenced bills, S. 1467 and S. 2043, aim to resolve this issue legislatively, and I look forward to continued discussion of these bills.

Thank you again for contacting me. I am truly grateful that so many Nebraskans such as yourself have shared their views with me on this matter. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future on other issues of importance to you.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator

He seems to be tiptoeing around the issue that the contraceptive coverage would still have to be supplied, whether it was Catholics who paid for it or not.

Anyway, aside from asking some general questions about what this political gobbeldygook might mean, I’d also like to ask what you think of the bolded part especially. What to do about Catholic organisations that are also their own insurer.

 

[Dale_M]

He seems to be tiptoeing around the issue that the contraceptive coverage would still have to be supplied, whether it was Catholics who paid for it or not.

Anyway, aside from asking some general questions about what this political gobbeldygook might mean, I’d also like to ask what you think of the bolded part especially. What to do about Catholic organisations that are also their own insurer.

His letter mentions a bill which he has co-sponsored: the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, S. 1467

That bill addresses the concerns you raised. Here is the relevant section

SEC. 3. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) In General- Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

    `(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES-

        `(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS- A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because--

            `(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

            `(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

        `(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS- Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

        `(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE- No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan's, sponsor's, provider's, or person's unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1467:

 

[Leegal]

I honestly don’t know where this particular letter would go - here or Catholic news. If it belongs somewhere else, please move it there. But I honestly thought this would be the best choice.

About a month ago I wrote an HHS mandate protest letter.

One of my senators, Ben Nelson, recently sent a letter in reply to it.

He seems to be tiptoeing around the issue that the contraceptive coverage would still have to be supplied, whether it was Catholics who paid for it or not.

Anyway, aside from asking some general questions about what this political gobbeldygook might mean, I’d also like to ask what you think of the bolded part especially. What to do about Catholic organisations that are also their own insurer.

At least yours tiptoed. One of mine just wrote me back about her concerns and how the conscience exemption was defeated. Weeks after. New York is a wasteland.

 

[Leegal]

Sorry. For the self-insured (where the employer and the insurer is one and the same), the compromise to the compromise on the mandate now calls for government oversight of the self-insured. They will be putting some beaureaucrat in Catholic organizations to see that everything goes “according to plan.”

More intrusion is what it means.

 

[Dale_M]

Sorry. For the self-insured (where the employer and the insurer is one and the same), the compromise to the compromise on the mandate now calls for government oversight of the self-insured. They will be putting some beaureaucrat in Catholic organizations to see that everything goes “according to plan.”

Hm?

I am not aware of that. Could you share some information about this?

 

[TarkanAttila]

His letter mentions a bill which he has co-sponsored: the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, S. 1467

That bill addresses the concerns you raised. Here is the relevant section

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1467:

Fascinating, Dale. Thank you for that. Glad to know he is at least supporting something helpful.

 

[Leegal]

Hm?

I am not aware of that. Could you share some information about this?

There were two compromises this year, offered by the administration. The one in mid-March (not the one rejected in February) now said that the self-insured faith based organizations would have third-party oversight as a compromise to the rejected compromise. Whether that be forcing an insurance company to oversee the administration of the self-insurance plan, or the HHS, to see that it is done according to plan (contraception, sterlizations and abortificants included). This gives the appearance that the Church (or the faith based organization who self-administers is not actually providing the coverage (a compromise?), but that the third party oversight will see to compliance.

Rep. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) called it an “accounting trick,” The point is if the Catholic Church is not going to provide the coverage for the faith based organizations, the Catholic Church is not going to do it with a third party “administrator” watching over them or doing it for them.

washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/bishops-say-obama-compromise-is-unconstitutional/2012/04/04/gIQAWUHvvS_story.html

I know I wrote to the Senators because I heard back from both. But only my senator Gilibrand wrote back to say that though she was “concerned” the bill was tabled or set aside that would have given that conscience exemption to the faith based organizations by a 51-48 vote, weeks after it was tabled on March 1st.

 

[Leegal]

Here’s the additional link. S 1467 was tabled or set aside, not to be given an up and down vote.

saginaw.org/dos-news/respect-for-rights-of-conscience-act-tabled.html

I suspect they tabled it to not bring it to an actual vote because other mandates of Obamacare would be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of March, and were over a 3 day period. One big issue is severability, which Congress did not write into Obamacare. It’s now for the USSC to decide if the individual mandate falls (forcing individuals to buy insurance), without a written severability clause, can the rest of bill (with this objectionable other mandate against the Church) still stand alone.

My feeling is that, with this huge decision in the hands of the Court, they did not want to pass another bill impacting Obamacare without knowing whether or not the Act will stand at all.

I’m praying for that decision in June and the Justices see that without a severability clause, if one part should fail, the whole of the Act falls with it.

There remains the House bill which has been languishing in committee since 2011.

 

[Rence]

I honestly don’t know where this particular letter would go - here or Catholic news. If it belongs somewhere else, please move it there. But I honestly thought this would be the best choice.

About a month ago I wrote an HHS mandate protest letter.

One of my senators, Ben Nelson, recently sent a letter in reply to it.

He seems to be tiptoeing around the issue that the contraceptive coverage would still have to be supplied, whether it was Catholics who paid for it or not.

Anyway, aside from asking some general questions about what this political gobbeldygook might mean, I’d also like to ask what you think of the bolded part especially. What to do about Catholic organisations that are also their own insurer.

The bolded part points out the fact that in these hospitals, the employees pay for part of their insurance as well. It’s not like the hospital is paying it all. The smaller entities would vary: some employers would pay for all or some of the premiums for the employees.

One still has to consider that if employers are able to deny coverage to their employees about one thing or another that is offensive to them, then other employers can do the same about other benefits and claim that it is offensive to them.

 

[Leegal]

One still has to consider that if employers are able to deny coverage to their employees about one thing or another that is offensive to them, then other employers can do the same about other benefits and claim that it is offensive to them.

Conscience exemptions are usually religious based, as this one was. It would not have applied to employers generally so that those large secular employers could randomly find offensive coverage and eliminate it. It was to have been a faith-based conscience exemption.

Until recently, religions and their institutions were allowed freedom from government interference in their teachings. Any other employer, secular universities, and government employers (as examples) cannot fall back on religious or faith based teachings to do an end run around the mandate or the conscience exemption because their business is not religion.

The other bothersome issue is the many if not most states already have faith based conscience exemptions in state law. This is all an abuse of federal power and is a violation of the 10th Amend. to the U.S. Constitution. If the feds don’t want to provide a lawful conscience exemption, many states already do. What then? More lawsuits as the feds try to trump state law by not conforming with a conscience exemption should Obamacare stand.

The whole of this Obamacare must fall. As Scalia said, it’s not his job nor the job of his 4 law clerks to go through 2,000 + pages and pick and choose what is good and what is bad. It stands or it falls as one. If it falls, the mandate forcing the faith based organizations to provide contraception, etc. coverage will go with it.