State reverses abortion decision at 2 Catholic colleges

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CALIFORNIA ABORTION MANDATE CHALLENGED FEDERALLY BY CATHOLIC COLLEGE EMPLOYEES
Employees of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles are taking their fight against state-mandated abortion coverage in their insurance plans to the federal government.
Click to expand...
The Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation filed a formal complaint Thursday with the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of seven employees of the Catholic university, telling the department that federal law bars states from discriminating against insurance providers who offer plans without abortion coverage.
Click to expand...
The alliance on Thursday also told Pennsylvania State University it should reverse a decision to remove Bibles from hotel rooms that was prompted by an atheist group’s earlier complaint that allowing Bibles violated the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
The California Department of Managed Health Care did an about-face last month and rejected insurance plans it had already approved for Loyola and Santa Clara University, saying they must cover all abortion, not just elective abortion. Its rationale was that all abortions are “medically necessary.”
Click to expand...
The so-called Weldon Amendment blocks states from receiving certain federal funds if they discriminate against insurance providers for not covering abortion.
Click to expand...
The California department “purports to be interpreting and applying the law of California, a state that receives an enormous amount of ‘funds made available in this Act’ in this and recent appropriations” of Congress, the letter told the Department of Health and Human Services. “The need to remedy this discrimination is urgent because it is immediately depriving [the employees] of a health plan that omits elective abortions.”
Click to expand...
In a Sept. 8 response to a letter from the alliance and foundation that California was not only violating federal law but also misinterpreting its own state constitution, Shelley Rouillard, director of the California department, didn’t specifically counter those groups’ analysis.
Click to expand...
Rouillard said California law dating to 1975 “requires health plans to cover abortion as a basic health care service” and the state constitution requires them to “treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.” Her response was included in the groups’ complaint to the federal government.
Click to expand...
“No state can ignore federal law and continue to unlawfully receive taxpayer money,” said the alliance’s Casey Mattox in a press release. “So California has a choice: Stop forcing these employers to cover abortion or forfeit the tens of billions of dollars it receives under the condition that it follow the law.”
Click to expand...
 
CALIFORNIA ABORTION MANDATE CHALLENGED FEDERALLY BY CATHOLIC COLLEGE EMPLOYEES
Employees of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles are taking their fight against state-mandated abortion coverage in their insurance plans to the federal government.
Click to expand...
The Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation filed a formal complaint Thursday with the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of seven employees of the Catholic university, telling the department that federal law bars states from discriminating against insurance providers who offer plans without abortion coverage.
Click to expand...
The alliance on Thursday also told Pennsylvania State University it should reverse a decision to remove Bibles from hotel rooms that was prompted by an atheist group’s earlier complaint that allowing Bibles violated the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
The California Department of Managed Health Care did an about-face last month and rejected insurance plans it had already approved for Loyola and Santa Clara University, saying they must cover all abortion, not just elective abortion. Its rationale was that all abortions are “medically necessary.”
Click to expand...
The so-called Weldon Amendment blocks states from receiving certain federal funds if they discriminate against insurance providers for not covering abortion.
Click to expand...
The California department “purports to be interpreting and applying the law of California, a state that receives an enormous amount of ‘funds made available in this Act’ in this and recent appropriations” of Congress, the letter told the Department of Health and Human Services. “The need to remedy this discrimination is urgent because it is immediately depriving [the employees] of a health plan that omits elective abortions.”
Click to expand...
In a Sept. 8 response to a letter from the alliance and foundation that California was not only violating federal law but also misinterpreting its own state constitution, Shelley Rouillard, director of the California department, didn’t specifically counter those groups’ analysis.
Click to expand...
Rouillard said California law dating to 1975 “requires health plans to cover abortion as a basic health care service” and the state constitution requires them to “treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.” Her response was included in the groups’ complaint to the federal government.
Click to expand...
“No state can ignore federal law and continue to unlawfully receive taxpayer money,” said the alliance’s Casey Mattox in a press release. “So California has a choice: Stop forcing these employers to cover abortion or forfeit the tens of billions of dollars it receives under the condition that it follow the law.”
Click to expand...
\
 
estesbob said:
I never covered contraception for my employees in my 32 years in business. I know numerous catholic businessmen who did the same. There was not a peep before because it was not FORCED on people before.
Click to expand...
But the coverage was forced on people before; as the article shows, this coverage has been mandated in California since the 1970s. My guess is that your business does not operate in California, but if it does, it would be good to know how you get around the law.

Your position seems consistent with Catholic teaching. But in my post I was referring to Catholics who contribute at work to health insurance plans that do cover contraception and abortion. They don’t seem historically to have had any problem with it at all–and don’t even now.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
But the coverage was forced on people before; as the article shows, this coverage has been mandated in California since the 1970s. My guess is that your business does not operate in California, but if it does, it would be good to know how you get around the law.

Your position seems consistent with Catholic teaching. But in my post I was referring to Catholics who contribute at work to health insurance plans that do cover contraception and abortion. They don’t seem historically to have had any problem with it at all–and don’t even now.
Click to expand...
Human beings are sinful and lazy and indifferent sometimes. That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. 🤷
 
Seraphim73 said:
Human beings are sinful and lazy and indifferent sometimes. That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. 🤷
Click to expand...
No, I certainly understand that much. So shouldn’t the Bishops instruct Catholics not to participate in plans at work that cover contraception and abortion?

Just seems to me like the Catholic Church would want to at least attempt to clean up its own house first before protesting against government intrusion and claiming oppression of religious freedom? How can one argue sincerely that the government shouldn’t require Catholics to have contraceptive coverage (for example) when it seems 1) most Catholics have no problems with contraception and 2) even the most outspoken Bishops against the contraception mandate include contraceptive coverage for their diocesean employees? (e.g., cal-catholic.com/?p=626) I still don’t get it.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
No, I certainly understand that much. So shouldn’t the Bishops instruct Catholics not to participate in plans at work that cover contraception and abortion?

Just seems to me like the Catholic Church would want to at least attempt to clean up its own house first before protesting against government intrusion and claiming oppression of religious freedom? How can one argue sincerely that the government shouldn’t require Catholics to have contraceptive coverage (for example) when it seems 1) most Catholics have no problems with contraception and 2) even the most outspoken Bishops against the contraception mandate include contraceptive coverage for their diocesean employees? (e.g., cal-catholic.com/?p=626) I still don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Bishops are sinful, lazy and indifferent sometimes too. I don’t have an answer to your question. I mean there is no doubt the Catholic Churches teaches that artificial birth control is sinful. I don’t see why they have to clean up their own house before protesting government mandates. It’s certainly not relevant to protecting religious freedom. Mandating something by force is quite different from simply failing to live up to your own teachings.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
No, I certainly understand that much. So shouldn’t the Bishops instruct Catholics not to participate in plans at work that cover contraception and abortion?

Just seems to me like the Catholic Church would want to at least attempt to clean up its own house first before protesting against government intrusion and claiming oppression of religious freedom? How can one argue sincerely that the government shouldn’t require Catholics to have contraceptive coverage (for example) when it seems 1) most Catholics have no problems with contraception and 2) even the most outspoken Bishops against the contraception mandate include contraceptive coverage for their diocesean employees? (e.g., cal-catholic.com/?p=626) I still don’t get it.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right that many bishops did not do their job and clean up their own house before this became an issue. Now whether this is a case of being lazy or sloppy, or a case of indifferentism or opposition to Church teaching, we don’t know. For the sake of giving the benefit of the doubt and in our most charitable guess, we would have to assume it was a case of sloppiness.

Now that this has come to light, the bishops must clean up their own house and their own insurance plans. But their sloppiness is not material to the discussion about whether this is legal or ethical to force people to buy these things.

One other point, we have to differentiate between the insurance plans for a diocese and the insurance plan for a large company that a Catholic works for. The individual Catholic doesn’t own the business, and isn’t in charge of selecting the insurance plan. They may licitly purchase the insurance coverage, but they must not use the morally evil options. Their connection to the evil in this case is remote.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
No, I certainly understand that much. So shouldn’t the Bishops instruct Catholics not to participate in plans at work that cover contraception and abortion?

Just seems to me like the Catholic Church would want to at least attempt to clean up its own house first before protesting against government intrusion and claiming oppression of religious freedom? How can one argue sincerely that the government shouldn’t require Catholics to have contraceptive coverage (for example) when it seems 1) most Catholics have no problems with contraception and 2) even the most outspoken Bishops against the contraception mandate include contraceptive coverage for their diocesean employees? (e.g., cal-catholic.com/?p=626) I still don’t get it.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between an individual Catholic choosing to accept birth control coverage and the Govt forcing an employer to pay for it. The former is an act of free will-the latter is forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs under color of law.

The fact that some Bishops may have acceded to this unjust law in the past of not complained loud enough is totally irrelevant to the question as to whether the Govt can legally force an employer to fund contraception and abortion.
 
estesbob said:
There is a huge difference between an individual Catholic choosing to accept birth control coverage and the Govt forcing an employer to pay for it. The former is an act of free will-the latter is forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs under color of law.

The fact that some Bishops may have acceded to this unjust law in the past of not complained loud enough is totally irrelevant to the question as to whether the Govt can legally force an employer to fund contraception and abortion.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the government is a democracy, so you are going to have the tyranny of the majority override perceived rights in some cases.
 
zz912 said:
They may licitly purchase the insurance coverage, but they must not use the morally evil options.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this is morally different from having taxpayer-funded abortions, or funding contraception under the HHS mandate as long as they don’t personally use contraception.

Why aren’t Catholics required to opt out of these plans at work? Especially now that they have other available and arguably morally preferable options.
 
zz912 said:
You’re absolutely right that many bishops did not do their job and clean up their own house before this became an issue. Now whether this is a case of being lazy or sloppy, or a case of indifferentism or opposition to Church teaching, we don’t know. For the sake of giving the benefit of the doubt and in our most charitable guess, we would have to assume it was a case of sloppiness.

Now that this has come to light, the bishops must clean up their own house and their own insurance plans. But their sloppiness is not material to the discussion about whether this is legal or ethical to force people to buy these things.
Click to expand...
To the outsider it seems like the bishops who are most outspoken in their opposition (such as Abp. Cordileone in the article, or subsequently Bp. Barber) have the most problems internally. Or do you think Abp. Cordileone an anomaly?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I don’t see how this is morally different from having taxpayer-funded abortions, or funding contraception under the HHS mandate as long as they don’t personally use contraception.

Why aren’t Catholics required to opt out of these plans at work? Especially now that they have other available and arguably morally preferable options.
Click to expand...
A teller working for Bank of America has no (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever into the health care plan offered by BOA. So his options are to buy this insurance, or look for a private plan. Yet, the Obamacare plans also have the same morally unnacceptable problems. So what options are available to them? They can’t change the plan, and they can’t buy one on the private market.

You don’t see a difference between that, and a Catholic business owner who IS in control of purchasing the health care plan?
 
zz912 said:
A teller working for Bank of America has no (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever into the health care plan offered by BOA. So his options are to buy this insurance, or look for a private plan. Yet, the Obamacare plans also have the same morally unnacceptable problems. So what options are available to them? They can’t change the plan, and they can’t buy one on the private market.

You don’t see a difference between that, and a Catholic business owner who IS in control of purchasing the health care plan?
Click to expand...
This person could get private coverage–absolutely. ACA didn’t ban private coverage. Actually the Obamacare plan would be less likely to cover abortion than would BOA.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
This person could get private coverage–absolutely. ACA didn’t ban private coverage. Actually the Obamacare plan would be less likely to cover abortion than would BOA.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. Obamacare plans cover abortion and contraception.
 
zz912 said:
Not true at all. Obamacare plans cover abortion and contraception.
Click to expand...
In theory any policy whose premiums are subsidized by Medicaid should not be covering abortion coverage under the Hyde Amendment. So one would expect less abortion funding, not more. But that’s not what is happening, I hear.
 
ProVobis said:
In theory any policy whose premiums are subsidized by Medicaid should not be covering abortion coverage under the Hyde Amendment. So one would expect less abortion funding, not more. But that’s not what is happening, I hear.
Click to expand...
In theory the President is supposed to follow the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top