WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 10, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. bishops say the proposal made today by President Barack Obama's administration regarding the mandate to cover abortifacients, sterilization and contraception "continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions."
Obama's proposal came after widespread and energetic condemnation of the Jan. 20 announcement that employers must include abortifacients in the health care plans offered to their employees as part of "preventative care."
"The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare," the bishops' statement began. "That is why we raised two serious objections to the 'preventive services' regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011," [and confirmed Jan. 20.]
"All the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease," they observed. "Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether."
Then, the prelates explained, they opposed the burden placed on the consciences of "insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage."
"We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders -- not just the extremely small subset of 'religious employers' that HHS proposed to exempt initially."
Anything new?
The communiqué then explains what the president's proposal today implies.
"First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.
"Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details."
The bishops said that a preliminary study of the proposal indicates that it "would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate. It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider."
The U.S. bishops said that these changes need "careful moral analysis" and "moreover, appear subject to some measure of change."
"But," they stated, "we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders -- for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals -- is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns."
The bishops said that parts of the information on Obama's proposal are in writing and other elements have only been explained orally.
"We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services."