I mentioned this in passing in yesterday’s Roundup, but the lawsuit filed by two major Catholic institutions over the Obama Administration’s contraception rule is really something to behold.
The story so far: The Department of Health and Human Services instituted a rule from the Affordable Care Act that ensured all employer-provided health insurance plans would cover reproductive and preventive services with no co-pay. This included a wide range of preventive services and not just birth control. But religiously-affiliated institutions, mostly Catholic ones, objected.
Mind you that homogenous religious institutions like churches were already exempted. But religiously-affiliated employers, even though they have employees that don’t subscribe to their faith, wanted to control what kind of health services those employees would be allowed to access for free. It’s a question of “conscience,” you see, not control.
So the Administration responded to these objections by crafting a compromise, whereby the insurance company would have to provide the free preventive coverage to employees who wanted it, if religiously affiliated institutions opted out. This means that the institutions would have no direct contact with the birth control services, for example. But I guess the indirect, tacit assent, through one of their employees getting free preventive services, was just too much to take. So they filed suit.
The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and the University of Notre Dame separately filed lawsuits in federal court challenging a Health and Human Services rule that would require them to offer coverage for contraception, the use of which runs contrary to Catholic teaching.
“For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice — schools, hospitals and social service organizations — are not ‘religious enough,’” said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, in a statement.
Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said: “This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.”
(Jenkins emphasized that the university’s suit was not intended to prevent access to contraception or to prevent the government from providing services.)
So it’s entirely a principles-based lawsuit (here it is, by the way). The plaintiffs suing over a contraception mandate claim to not want to prevent access to contraception!
The plaintiffs argue that they are being singled out, and that the law isn’t being applied in a neutral fashion. So the existence of any exemptions in a law at all, if they aren’t provided to these two Catholic institutions, makes a law unconstitutional? Furthermore, they argue that, because NARAL was consulted by HHS, that the law thus automatically “targets religious organizations for disfavored treatment.”
What Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of Washington are really saying here is that their statuses as religious institutions allows them to evade any law which they determine violates their religious beliefs, even if (in this case) they are not even part of the transaction envisioned in the law.
…and if you don’t think this is about control, particularly control of women, check this out:
More than one-third of obstetrician-gynecologists at religiously-affiliated hospitals say they’ve had a conflict with their institution about patient care policies based on religious tenets—including over half of ob-gyns at Catholic hospitals, according to a new survey.
“There’s really a striking difference between people who practice in Catholic hospitals and people who practice in hospitals of all other religious denominations,” Stulberg told Reuters Health. “Some of these conflicts seem to be unique to Catholic hospitals.”
That’s likely because Catholic health care institutions have the most specific restrictions on patient care and cover the widest breadth of reproductive services with their policies, noted Freedman—such as not giving out birth control.
Catholic hospitals put their beliefs over your health.




18 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Why women don’t leave the stupid uterus-envying-men-wearing-dresses R.C. church in droves over this is a mystery to me.
I like what Henry VIII and the French Revolution did to the Catholic church.
Better still, what people in current western Europe are doing to the church. Making it into its richly deserved irrelevancy.
When you consider that the average age of American nuns is in their 70′s, I’d say a good number of them already have.
Church leadership since John Paul II has been the most reactionary and repressive since the Inquisition. After the Vatican II reforms under John XXIII which liberalized many church practices and doctrine, the conservatives have been waiting for an opportunity to roll them back. When John Paul II entered the scene they got their wish. Under Ratzinger’s Prefecture of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith liberals were purged and in some cases excommunicated from the Jesuits, Benedictines, and other orders. Emphasis was given to promoting hardcore reactionaries to power – as long as they firmly sided against all women’s rights issues, particularly abortion and contraception. Everything else was secondary, including protecting innocent children from sexual predator priests. This continues after JPII’s death, because Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI.
Their is no place for the Catholic Church in a modern society or culture. That the government gives them and other religious institutions money for administering social programs is the sickest joke of all.
from your typing fingers to my eyes… cannot agree more. one of life’s mysteries. really why anyone – male or female – still endorse this fake “religion” is beyond me.
I, also, want separation of church and state….total separation. So, here you go….No Federal, State or Local money to any and all religions. No financial aid, Pell Grants or any other funds to Churches…Tax all church property…All! Church buildings…property tax, Church land….property tax….church salaries….income tax. You get the idea. Religious organizations pay nothing….deductions for donations to churches…gone! Is that what you had in mind Cardinal? Somehow I didn’t think so…U’ve got it pretty good….Shut up!
You forgot to mention their outlandish hats.
Cardinal Tiny Tim Dolan that said the suits were not about contraception but about religious freedom. I sent him the following reply:
“To His Immenence, Please have a care not to violate my religious freedom in your plan to dominate women. I 2 can hire lawyers”
Because the Red Beanie Baby is nice enough to tweet the laity, we should respond. We need to let him know that we too will fight to protect our religious freedom and he and his pedophile protecting colleagues should be very, very careful where the step with their bejeweled feet.
I haven’t kept up with exactly what’s been going on in the R.C. hierarchy. Who cares. But what you say is consistent with what I have picked up in casual observation.
I’m sure plenty of women have left over the church’s moronic views on contraception.
I left it in high school over this very issue, and I didn’t even need to have a vagina. The Church has been an equal opportunity offender for a long time. What I just don’t understand is why my mom and women like her still support this pathetic and morally bankrupt institution to this day. It and all the other fundie sects (C of C, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Mormon, 7th Day, etc.) which place a premium on literal interpretation of the Bible seem to have lost their fucking minds about what’s in the New Testament. They are the exact opposite in practice of what Christ was preaching about.
Wow, so much hate.
It’s a very simple case, which I’m sure the Catholic Church will win.
The Obama Administration has over stepped the line of freedom of religion.
The church is saying we serve all people with our hospitals, schools, and charities, if the government likes the services we provide then they can fund them, if not don’t fund them, but the government can’t tell us to change what we do.
The article takes about control.
Why would President Obama want to fight this battle?
Women can buy birth control pills, or condoms at any drug store.
Is this fight worth the cost of birth control?
or is President Obama the one who wants to control what everyone in this country can do, including religious institutions.
As for the compromise solution, many Catholic organizations are self insured. So saying the insurance company will pay the cost, doesn’t help them, they will still pay the cost. But even if they are not self insured, by offering a health insurance plan that included birth control would be the same as endorsing the use of birth control.
Can you imagine if the Government said cigarettes are bad for you and will cause cancer, and then mandating that cigarette companies give free samples to everyone in the country everyday of the year, forever!
Do you think smoking would go up? or down? after all some people already smoke, and the government is telling them not to do it.
kind of a mixed message isn’t it?
Uh no, it’s the Catholic church that is stepping over the line. They don’t have the right to force their employees to adhere to their belief structure.
Additionally they have the choice to drop coverage in entirety. However, they do not have the right to cherry pick which conditions or which gender they will offer coverage to.
Quite frankly most of their arguments about reproduction and contraception border on ridiculous. I’m supposed to believe that God is okay for medical intervention when He gives someone pnuemonia or cancer (because He totally didn’t realize what He was doing when he gave people these conditions right?)but somehow or another He is morally opposed to intervention when the problem is a reproductive nature? Absurdity! The God I pray to is loving and forgiving. The idea that He is the one opposing an abortion for a raped 12 year old is nutso. It’s a bunch of moralistic prigs that oppose intervention. They’d rather destroy a living breathing human being than accept that God could or would allow a fetus to die(which is yet another absurdity because Christianity posits that there is no death for the soul, when we leave this plain of existence we go to be with our Heavenly Father, so it stands to reason an “innocent fetus” would simply go home to be with Our Father.)
MENstruation Envy, I think.
“Hate?” You mean like the Church has for Gays?
I don’t “Hate” the church… but if they hire people as an established Corporation, they need to abide by the Federal Rules for Corporations. Either that or start paying taxes.
(I love the interjection of “Freedom” and all the other insipid amorphous buzzword talking points too.)
The Church wants to have its cake and eat it too. And we’re gonna hear Dolan whine until they get their way. Waaaaaaaaaah.
“The Obama Administration has over stepped the line of freedom of religion.”
This is an employment compensation issue, not a religious freedom issue. An employer should have no more say in how you use your health insurance benefit than they do on how you spend your paycheck.
Should a religious employer be able to ask for receipts for every dime of your paycheck to make sure you didn’t walk into CVS and buy condoms?
Perhaps this can become an incremental step towards Medicare for all. If they don’t want to cover it, offer a supplemental policy under Medicare for a small fee (added to their payroll deduction). This way their tax dollars do not oay for it. On the other hand we take away their tax free status so we don’t pay for their religious intolerance. Now that is what I call religious freedom