Problems With Obama’s Accommodation on HHS
Earlier today, President Obama announced an accommodation to religious organizations, including Catholic institutions, when it comes to providing contraceptives to women who are employed by the Church. I would like to take a look at why I believe there is still a problem in the mandate as it currently stands.
The president began his statement this morning by reminding those gathered that a central part of the health care reform law is focused on preventative care.
As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money –- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.
We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.
The Catholic Church does not believe that a pregnancy is an illness that needs to be prevented. The fact that this administration does believe this, leaves us far from being on the same page. President Obama is correct in stating that health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services, this is due to the fact that it is costly to provide services to women who carry a child to term.
Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.
Whether you’re a teacher, or a small businesswoman, or a nurse, or a janitor, no woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period. This basic principle is already the law in 28 states across the country.
I still have doubts about this 99% statistic, but even if it is true it is irrelevant to the argument being made by the Church that the moral principles derived both by divine and natural law don’t change based on how many people are abiding by them or not. It also makes no difference as to how many federal, state or local laws support an action that are opposed to the moral law. The Church has a long history of resisting unjust laws and we will continue to follow the laws of God when there is a conflict between His laws and the laws of the state.
Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here –- and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.
In fact, my first job in Chicago was working with Catholic parishes in poor neighborhoods, and my salary was funded by a grant from an arm of the Catholic Church. And I saw that local churches often did more good for a community than a government program ever could, so I know how important the work that faith-based organizations do and how much impact they can have in their communities.
I also know that some religious institutions -– particularly those affiliated with the Catholic Church -– have a religious objection to directly providing insurance that covers contraceptive services for their employees. And that’s why we originally exempted all churches from this requirement -– an exemption, by the way, that eight states didn’t already have.
And that’s why, from the very beginning of this process, I spoke directly to various Catholic officials, and I promised that before finalizing the rule as it applied to them, we would spend the next year working with institutions like Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities to find an equitable solution that protects religious liberty and ensures that every woman has access to the care that she needs.
If cherishing the First Amendment rights of all citizens was at the heart of the current administration’s decision with regard to the recent HHS mandate, he would not have gone forward with it to begin with. It also seems pretty clear to me that even those who have never worked for the Catholic Church know what our stance is on abortion and contraception. It is a long held teaching that is often attacked by those outside of the Church. When the news of the mandate was first released the administration stated they were giving the Church a year to make adjustments so as to comply with the mandate, not a year to negotiate with the Obama administration on preserving the protection of our religious liberty.
Now, after the many genuine concerns that have been raised over the last few weeks, as well as, frankly, the more cynical desire on the part of some to make this into a political football, it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option, that we needed to move this faster. So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.
In other words, waiting too long would cost me votes this November.
Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.
The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.
Now, I’ve been confident from the start that we could work out a sensible approach here, just as I promised. I understand some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue, but it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way. This is an issue where people of goodwill on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone. With today’s announcement, we’ve done that. Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.
We live in a pluralistic society where we’re not going to agree on every single issue, or share every belief. That doesn’t mean that we have to choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans. We are unique among nations for having been founded upon both these principles, and our obligation as citizens is to carry them forward. I have complete faith that we can do that.
Here’s where we still have a problem. It would seem that by simply moving the cost and responsibility of providing access to contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations to the insurance providers rather than the religious institutions would solve the problem, thus upholding religious liberty of institutions as well as individuals who desire to be provided with contraceptive services through their health care. The first problem that I can see is that many Catholic institutions are self insured. My own diocese in Knoxville falls into this category. And since the diocese employs people in institutions like Catholic schools and Catholic Charities, we would end up in the same place as the mandate placed us before, paying for services that the Church finds morally objectionable. There is also the fact that even when this is not the case, the Church would still be paying for those services indirectly through insurance premiums. The Church refers to this as material cooperation with evil, meaning we are not allowed to assist, even indirectly, with what we believe to be the wrong doing of others.
Today’s statement by President Obama is heartening in that it shows he is willing to change direction. However, it is sadly still insufficient in protecting the freedom of conscience which is afforded the Church by the Constitution. I hope you will continue to join me in pushing for a more meaningful change to the Obama administration’s current policies when it comes to applying the Affordable Health Care Law to our religious institutions.
Related Posts:
About The Author
Comments