USCCB responds to inaccurate
statement of fact on HHS mandate made during Vice Presidential
Debate
10/12/2012
"With regard to the assault on the
Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious
institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services,
Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer
contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to
get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is
a fact."
This is not a fact. The HHS mandate
contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That
exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social
services, Georgetown
HHS has proposed an additional
"accommodation" for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself
describes as "non-exempt." That proposal does not even potentially relieve these
organizations from the obligation "to pay for contraception" and "to be a
vehicle to get contraception." They will have to serve as a vehicle, because
they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and
that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and
abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums
that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be
applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and
surgeries.
For more details, please see USCCB's
regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed "accommodation": www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf
Posts
ReplyDeleteActually, it is the bishops who have it wrong. Their claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a "big lie"--a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.
Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.
The second choice does not amount to "violating" the law and paying a "fine," as some suppose. As the law "does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance" (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such "mandate" to "violate." Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.
Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a "large employer" (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)
In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is "morally sound." While also considering this option "unfortunate" in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers' "moral connection" to that coverage would be "remote." https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821
Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.