Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Archdiocese Health Plan Has Covered Birth Control, Abortion for Over a Decade
The Christian Post ^ | May 28, 2013|4:57 pm | Leonardo Blair

Posted on 05/28/2013 6:49:23 PM PDT by haffast

Despite his strong opposition to the portion of the new health care law that requires employers, including those with religious affiliations to cover birth control in employee health plans, the Archdiocese headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York has been quietly paying for birth control for more than a decade.

According to a report in The New York Times, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has "reluctantly and indirectly" been paying for health plans that cover birth control and "voluntary pregnancy termination" for thousands of its unionized employees for more than ten years – a position that could potentially weaken their legal argument on the national stage against complying with the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

"We provide the services under protest," Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, told the Times.

The report notes that the Archdiocese of New York had previously acknowledged that some local Catholic affiliates offered health insurance plans that covered birth control to comply with state law. This is the first time, however, that the institution has publicly acknowledged using its own money to pay for similar plans that even cover abortions for workers at associated clinics and nursing homes.

snip

(Excerpt) Read more at global.christianpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aclu; affordablecareact; becket; dolan; obamacare; unions; usccb; zwilling

1 posted on 05/28/2013 6:49:23 PM PDT by haffast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: haffast

Well, then perhaps it’s time we stopped. The media thinks they will win on this issue because New York wags the rest of the nation.


2 posted on 05/28/2013 6:51:46 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I am shocked. And it takes alot to shock me....and btw..Steinbeck was right.


3 posted on 05/28/2013 6:54:32 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I can tell you for a FACT that it is NOT the case for teachers who work in for the Archdiocese.


4 posted on 05/28/2013 6:54:47 PM PDT by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: haffast

Catholics supporting abortion ... say it ain’t so.


5 posted on 05/28/2013 6:56:59 PM PDT by doc1019 (There is absolutely no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun

Yeah it bothers me too, but it’s good to get it out in the light so that we can kill this coverage.


6 posted on 05/28/2013 6:57:03 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I agree. It is good that it has been exposed. One is supposed to have the courage of its convictions. Thank you for posting this.


7 posted on 05/28/2013 6:58:58 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: haffast

This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think it needs a little more examination.

For instance, it says that “hospitals” are part of the diocese. But I don’t know how true that is. At least some hospital systems are run by nuns and others who are in a dissident relationship with the Church. I don’t know if that is the case with New York, but I would suspect that it probably is.

The same with Catholic Colleges. The bishops don’t entirely control them, and some of them—Notre Dame and Georgetown being the best known examples—are also in a state of partial revolt from the Church. I’d say that would be true of Fordham in the Bronx, among others.

So, I would hesitate to believe that the Archdiocese has actually signed off on such insurance policies—especially morning-after contraceptives, which are a form of abortion.


8 posted on 05/28/2013 7:01:16 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haffast

So they caved.......not surprised.


9 posted on 05/28/2013 7:02:55 PM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

There are a lot of things over which the diocese has no control, but that said, I never felt that Cdl Egan was particularly gung-ho on Catholic policies or at any rate, supporting them in any way that would be difficult for him.

As for Cdl Dolan, I’m increasingly disappointed by him.


10 posted on 05/28/2013 7:08:10 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: haffast

This information, to my way of thinking, would nullify any lawsuit presenting opposition to Obamacare.


11 posted on 05/28/2013 7:09:27 PM PDT by doc1019 (There is absolutely no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haffast
The Archdiocese of New York Responds to the New York Times Piece From Sunday…
12 posted on 05/28/2013 7:15:17 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haffast
If you are a business in New York State, you insure your employees for a whole lot of bad stuff. The insurance companies aren't allowed to sell policies that don't include evil, by law. The reasoning is, by taking your money and giving it to women who fornicate and kill their children, the Reds see it as compromising you—as opposed to sending themselves to hell.

After all, you chose to obey the unjust law—instead of disbanding your church and leaving your flock in the lurch. I don't follow—logically, mind you—that this would "weaken" Dolan's argument in the least.

It's the scandal of someone trying to limit the amount of evil he's forced to commit that stirs the Red dragon's wrath.

13 posted on 05/28/2013 7:24:54 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun

“People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent.” Robert Zimmerman


14 posted on 05/28/2013 7:28:29 PM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
The insurance companies aren't allowed to sell policies that don't include evil

Mayhap the church should have started their protest back in the day when such policies were enacted?

15 posted on 05/28/2013 7:30:15 PM PDT by doc1019 (There is absolutely no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: haffast

May 28, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2013

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY

Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.

“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.

What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.”

Why is everyone so surprised? The NYT hates the Catholic Church. They don’t call it the NY SLIMES for nothing.


16 posted on 05/28/2013 8:03:11 PM PDT by billys kid ("Bury me on my head for one day this world will be upside down." (Diogenes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haffast

May 28, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2013

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY

Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.

“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.

What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.”

Why is everyone so surprised? The NYT hates the Catholic Church. They don’t call it the NY SLIMES for nothing.


17 posted on 05/28/2013 8:07:11 PM PDT by billys kid ("Bury me on my head for one day this world will be upside down." (Diogenes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billys kid
ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York.

No other option? Really?

Frankly, I'm confused by the bishops' objection to Obamacare.

The bishops want government control of health care. The bishops have pushed for years for government control of health care. Now the government controls health care and they're complaining?

Go figure.

18 posted on 05/28/2013 8:09:02 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (People are idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Mayhap the church should have started their protest back in the day when such policies were enacted?

Mayhap they did. This is New York. This kind of crap has been going on forever. Nobody hears you scream, as the expression goes. It's a Lefty trap to think you can't start opposing a worse evil that you can't live with, just because you've been putting up with a lesser one that you could.

There's something called the law of "double effect." If I'm the Church, and I decide that in order to maintain my service to Catholics in New York State, I have to insure my employees' health—because New York and the Feds require it, because they also unjustly require me to hire unionized workers. And New York State also requires that I offer my employees services that are evil. I'm hoping they won't take them, and I don't like the fact that, even if they don't, I'm paying into the premium pool that pays off fornicators and abortionists.

But that's not your purpose, it's a side-effect—which you oppose—of your lack of religious freedom in New York. Your purpose in the catacombs of New York is to be able to offer Mass, baptize, teach the ignorant, hear Confessions, bury the dead, and so on. Same as you pay income taxes, part of which goes to reimburse Planned Parenthood for offering 12-year-old girls "free" abortions without their parents' knowledge under Title X.

Everyone needs to do what he can. If the Church is standing up to fight 0bummer and the Democrats, I'm sure not going to tell them to sit down.

19 posted on 05/28/2013 8:12:39 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

So, your saying that the church had to compromise in order to exist?


20 posted on 05/28/2013 8:26:04 PM PDT by doc1019 (There is absolutely no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns
Catholic News Agency ^ | Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am | CNS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2990320/posts?page=1

USCCB President Says ‘Now Is the Time’ To Reform Immigration System (Dolan, Gomez)
April 22, 2013
http://usccb.org/news/2013/13-075.cfm

L.A. Archbishop Gomez urges lawmakers not to delay on immigration (4-24-13 Chavez mentioned)
L A Times ^ | April 24, 2013, 2:22 p.m | By Evan Halper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3014757/posts

DC Cardinal McCarrick: Church Will Push for Immigration, Gun Safety
Newsmax ^ | Thursday, 28 Mar 2013 07:56 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3001669/posts

LA Archbishop Gomez keeps Mahony’s promise to push for immigration reform
Take Two ^ | March 27th, 2013, 7:35am | Charles Castaldi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3001516/posts


21 posted on 05/28/2013 8:37:28 PM PDT by haffast (Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: haffast

“Before he was a devoted husband and father, or a U.S. Senator, or a presidential candidate of historic accomplishments, Barack Obama took a job working as a community organizer for a group of eight Catholic parishes in one of the nation’s largest cities. With funding from the U.S. Bishops and working for three years out of an office in a Catholic church rectory, he embarked on a campaign to empower the lives of thousands of people who were suffering through economic circumstances not unlike what has befallen our country today. “

http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/the_catholic_case_for_obama.php

Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control
By SHARON OTTERMAN
Published: May 26, 2013 - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&;


22 posted on 05/28/2013 8:56:22 PM PDT by haffast (Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Yeah you’re ‘confused’.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,”151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”161

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.

Now you can *stop* being confused.


23 posted on 05/28/2013 11:26:22 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
So, your saying that the church had to compromise in order to exist?

In the mission territory that New York State has become, yes in a sense. But "compromise" is not quite the right word. As Christians, are we compromising our principles when we kill an intruder who is shooting at us? Most on FR would say that we're not. Our intent and our duty is to defend our life. Unfortunately, to neutralize the threat typically means neutralizing the criminal's life. We would agree—and the Church agrees—that this is moral, but it's still a serious action that would be a grave evil if we committed it under different circumstances for its own sake, say, as part of a "knock-out" game.

Another example would be exceeding a posted speed limit while driving your wife to the hospital when she is in labor.

Under what St. Thomas Aquinas calls the "Law of Double Effect," the negative, secondary effect has to be 1) not directly intended; and 2) heavily outweighed by the good being pursued. It's dealt with in the Summa Theologica II-II, Question 64, Article 7. In the view of the Archdiocese of New York, the good of tending the souls of 2.5 million Catholics from birth to death, plus the charitable good it could do for millions of non-Catholics, outweighed the evil of making insurance premium payments for plans the Church was legally forced to offer the laymen on their payroll. Notice that to a Catholic, 1) the good of saving souls is real; and also, 2) teaching employees not to use the illicit services offered under this plan, such as abortion, mitigates the unintended side effect of having such services included in the plan. You're making it less likely anyone will actually get an abortion covered in the plan.

But to a Marxist atheist, such as a typical reporter or Democrat (I repeat myself), 1) tending souls and feeding the poor is not a benefit unless it advances the Progressive project; and 2) it's hypocritical to reduce the possible side effect by preaching against abortion. This definition of "hypocrisy" is only applied to the enemies of Communism. Communists themselves believe in doing evils they actually intend and hope to accomplish, such as killing off their opponents, while falsely claiming to intend to make a better life for all—when their goal is just to seize power.

Intention matters, and yes, it can be sorted out from side-effects.

24 posted on 05/29/2013 5:10:05 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Here is the statement issued by the Archdiocese of New York, as posted at the Archdiocese’s site: “Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.

“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.
What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.” (www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/?i=29417)

This specious reply neglects to point out that these “contraceptive” services include aabortion.The NY Times article states that “The Archdiocese of New York has previously acknowledged that some local Catholic institutions offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs to comply with state law; now, it is also acknowledging that the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?_r=0)

What a lesson in hypocrisy. How shameful that a successor of the apostles—Cardinal Dolan—puts social welfare before the sanctity of life as he proudly wears his “seamless garment” and acts as an enabler and apologist for the Democratic Party and other pro-abortion groups; for more details, see http://dorothydayworker.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-faith-takes-licking-his-eminence.html.


25 posted on 06/17/2013 4:53:46 PM PDT by ubipetrusest (Abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes, Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson