The mandate requires employee health insurance policies to provide contraceptive coverage without co-pays or deductibles. Some of the fiercest battles have been with religious organizations that have objected to the mandate as a violation of their teachings against the use of contraceptives.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed its comment in March. The bishops still object to the narrow definition of "exempt" institutions, insisting, "The current proposal continues to define 'religious institution' in a way that, by the government's own admission, excludes (and therefore subjects to the mandate) a wide array of employers that are undeniably religious. Generally, the nonprofit religious organizations that fall on the 'non-exempt' side of this religious gerrymander include those organizations that contribute most visibly to the common good through the provision of health, educational, and social services."
Kristina Arriaga, executive director of the Becket Fund, a group that focuses on religious liberty issues, told NCR that her organization remains skeptical of the current proposals.
"HHS has mandated that American employers include all FDA-approved contraceptives in their group health plans without cost-sharing," Arriaga stated in an email. "HHS' mandate covers contraceptives like ella and IUDs that work after conception to end newly-created human life, and HHS knew when it issued the mandate that many Americans -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have serious moral objections to these drugs."
"The government is still trying to force many believers to pay for or facilitate access to abortion-causing drugs in ways their religion prohibits. What each organization's religion permits is not the government's call to make," Arriaga said.
| Commentary |
CMA Vice President for Govt. Relations Jonathan
Imbody: "As suggested by my colleague Kristina Arriaga of the Becket
Fund, which along with Alliance Defending Freedom has been racking up key court
victories regarding the HHS mandate, this battle reflects two distinct views of
the role of American government and the primacy of religious freedom.
"Despite the President's own testimony that 99 percent of women already access contraceptives, he and his administration appear determined to leverage the full power of the federal government against the expressed interests of the faith community in a drive to ensure that every single woman of child bearing age in the country--from Beverly Hills to The Hamptons--receives contraceptives for free. Under the HHS mandate, every U.S. insurance company must pony up for costly pills, implants and sterilization procedures, regardless of the threat to the company's solvency.
"The government blithely asserts without proof that it will cost less in the long run to prevent babies than to deliver them. Such a policy not only clashes with the traditional American life-affirming ethos; it also may portend an economic crisis resulting from an imbalance of older versus younger citizens. Consider, for example, that preventing babies from being born would only exacerbate the looming Social Security crisis. Funding Obamacare itself hinges in large part on forcing younger, healthy individuals to pay for health insurance and in effect subsidize the cost of healthcare for the older population.
"As to religious freedom, the administration continues to contend--as it did in its failed attempt to win over a single member of the Supreme Court to its radical viewpoint in the Hosanna Tabor case--that governmental interests handily trump First Amendment religious liberty. It is true that on rare occasions courts have allowed a compelling government interest to override individual religious liberty, provided the government uses the least restrictive means to achieve its goals. Yet forcing millions of citizens to violate their consciences and participate in a practice proscribed by their faith--when the administration easily could pursue the far less restrictive alternative of the government itself providing contraceptives without infringing on anyone's religious liberty--hardly meets this criteria.”
Action
Click HERE to urge your U.S. Rep. to support conscience rights bill HR 940
Resources
Arm yourself with arguments for religious liberty and against government coercion by reading CMA's and other groups' official comments sent to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Jeff Barrows, DO, MA - CMDA anti-trafficking education
contributor and Director, Abolition International Shelter Association:
“This blog post by Secretary Napolitano announces the recent release of a draft
Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking by
the federal government as well as an opportunity for the public to submit
comments regarding the 'Plan'. CMA is in the process of finalizing its comments
for submission pointing out two critical items. First of all, as one of the few
professions to regularly encounter victims of trafficking, healthcare
professionals play a critical role in identifying and freeing these modern day
slaves from their captivity. Second, for several years CMA has been playing a
lead role in educating healthcare professionals on the issue of human
trafficking. A small group of CMA members have put together a series of 11
online educational modules geared specifically to the healthcare professional
that teach in depth about the issue of human trafficking and how to identify a
victim within the healthcare setting. These are available for CME and can be
found at 
Donald Thompson, MD, MPH&TM - Director, CMDA's Global
Health Outreach: "Advocates for life should certainly be alarmed by the
malicious disregard of young women and their babies in the Gosnell 'House of
Horrors' case, as described in the Grand Jury report that is available at the 
President and Founder of The Institute for Youth Development
Chief of Medicine and CMDA Member Jeffrey Newswanger,
DO: "North Dakota lawmakers are leading the way in a campaign to make
their state the first in the Union to constitutionally guarantee 'the
inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development.'
Obviously this is a contentious issue, even in conservative North Dakota. By
using the politically charged phrase 'right to life,' they may well have touched
a nerve among some liberals, heating the debate even further. By necessity, the
amendment leaves many questions unaddressed, most notably the definition of when
human life begins.
Former Member of FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive
Health Drugs and CMDA Member W. David Hager, MD: “Plan B
(levonorgestrel) has been available as an over-the-counter, 'emergency
contraceptive pill' since 2003. This drug may inhibit ovulation if taken just
before the time of ovulation, or, as stated in the package literature, it may
inhibit implantation of a fertilized ovum. In the 27-4 vote by the Advisory
Committee on Reproductive Health Drugs for Women to approve OTC availability for
women 17 years of age and older, our opposition to its approval was based on:
lack of data on repetitive use; lack of data on safety and efficacy among
younger adolescents; and concern that this pill would be used in place of daily
contraceptives by sexually-active women. The drug was not immediately made
available as an OTC product.
CMDA Member Susan Giles, MD: "'Do your best to
present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be
ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15 NIV
1984). These words came alive to me with my recent experience in testifying
against a proposed physician-assisted suicide (PAS) bill (euphemistically known
as 'compassionate aid to the dying') before Connecticut’s Public Health
Committee. To date, I had not been politically active, but upon hearing of the
bill’s stealth presentation in my own state, my conscience called me to action
just days before the public hearing took place. I hope that my story will
convince those of you who have never done so that you too can advocate for what
is right in the public arena. After a crash course in civics and familiarizing
myself with the helpful ethical resources on CMDA’s website, I wrote my
testimony. The nearly 13 hours of public hearing prior to my speaking gave me
perspective that the opposition has a very earnest, poignant and human face, yet
their arguments are fear-driven and based on the quest for unmitigated
self-determination. I was one of only a handful of physicians to testify that
long day, and in retrospect, I have a deeper understanding for the credibility
our profession carries; our words have clout. Thankfully, the PAS bill in
Connecticut has been set side for the moment, but I am certain it will reappear
in a modified version, in your state if not in mine.