Richard Doerflinger, the USCCB’s great legislative ace, offers a sobering addendum in the comments to Matt Franck’s post:
One small cavil: The contraceptive mandate policy will not be deferred a year. It will apply this year, as originally planned, to the vast majority of individuals and organizations (except for the very narrow group of “religious employers” who hire and serve chiefly only people of their own faith, etc.). But specifically religious organizations that do not qualify for this narrow exemption may apply for deferred compliance for a year, only if they do not cover such services now. (Some of these organizations have recently discovered, to their chagrin, that their insurance does include these things, having investigated this because of the current controversy. They are out in the cold now, even if they had begun taking steps to exclude the coverage.) Since the mandate will be fully enforced on everyone else in the meantime, the question is whether even the religious groups with the one-year deferral will actually find any health insurer willing to write them a policy.
So, get ready. For the great majority of those affected, implementation begins now sooner than you think.
Update: Richard Doerflinger adds in the comments that, “The compliance date this year is August 1. So not exactly “now,” but soon. There is time for both legislative and judicial response.”
January 20th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
Benedict XVI’s remarks yesterday to the American Bishops on their “Ad Limina” visit were very timely. Here is an excerpt:
The entire document can be read here;
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THEIR “AD LIMINA” VISIT
January 20th, 2012 | 9:03 pm
“For the great majority of those affected, implementation begins now.”
Actually, it sounds like for quite a few of those affected, implementation began a long time ago. They’re already providing coverage for contraception. And, apparently, they didn’t even notice the supposedly horrific consequences to their religious liberty. So why do we think it will suddenly turn into a calamity now?
January 21st, 2012 | 1:32 am
Re:
“Actually, it sounds like for quite a few of those affected, implementation began a long time ago…”
Please don’t try to fob off a non sequitur as an argument.
January 21st, 2012 | 11:23 am
For Matt Schmitz: Further clarification: I had said that for most, implementation of the mandate begins “this year” rather than next year. The compliance date this year is August 1. So not exactly “now,” but soon. There is time for both legislative and judicial response.
January 21st, 2012 | 11:53 am
It begins now, with the recognition that we are living in a Time of great deception. The term ministerial exception serves as a diversion in order to obstruct Religious Liberty, just as the term person (human individual) serves as a diversion in order to obstruct the inherent unalienable Right to Life that has been endowed to every human individual from the moment of our conception when we were created equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female. As long as we continue to use their erroneous definition of Religious Liberty, and person, we will no longer live in One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all, because according to their erroneous definitions, not ever human individual is a person who has been endowed by God with inherent, UNalienable Rights.
January 21st, 2012 | 11:57 am
Is coverage of late-stage abortions required, or is it only contraception and stuff like the morning after pill? As a non-catholic, the idea of blocking access to contraception doesn’t excite me (similarly, as a non-Jehovah’s Witness, I’m not excited by the idea of preventing access to blood transfusions). As for opposition to the morning after pill, I regard this as zygote hysteria. Zygote hysteria is generated by sophistry and politics; it’s not the conclusion of sound doctrine.
January 21st, 2012 | 5:53 pm
Dear Bill S., you were once a zygote. (“You” were never either a sperm or an egg.) When did it become not-okay to kill you? For a man concerned with the appearance of sophistry in public life, you have a little problem here.
January 23rd, 2012 | 12:14 pm
“As a non-catholic, the idea of blocking access to contraception doesn’t excite me (similarly, as a non-Jehovah’s Witness, I’m not excited by the idea of preventing access to blood transfusions).”
Then as a non-Catholic, you are free to choose to only work for an employer that covers contraception and sterilization under its insurance policy. What right does the government have to tell Catholic-affiliated employers that they have to cover contraception and sterilization? If those things are so important to you, don’t work for a Catholic-affiliated employer.
“As for opposition to the morning after pill, I regard this as zygote hysteria. Zygote hysteria is generated by sophistry and politics; it’s not the conclusion of sound doctrine.”
Since when does the government, or its followers like you, get to decide whether Catholic doctrine is sound?
January 24th, 2012 | 11:36 pm
Let’s stop pretending there are a multitude of Catholic healthcare systems which are boldly anti-contraceptive or out there boldly assisting the unborn or at the forefront of setting up post-abortive counseling programs. There are as many “catholic” hospitals as there are “catholic” colleges. . . The Obama mandate will not change much of what is already done. Hello. . . contraception and contraceptive mis-advice has been given out freely in catholic hospitals for a few decades now (ok–in the “catholic” clinic down the hall, or the separate clinic upstairs in the catholic hospital owned building, but leased to the OB/GYN’s, etc., etc.). Abortion referals, vasectomies, tubals: they are all done to keep the women coming to keep the doors open. Sister Sheehan knew this when she shook Obama’s hand. Obama and Sebelius have insight into how catholic healthcare works and so of course will say “only if they do not cover these services now”, because they know nearly every catholic named hospital/clinic system covers it already!
Chagrin? No, I disagree. Catholic health admin, doctors, and patients all know the candy is there–follow the money. If there is chagrin, it is to fake some people out, perhaps even the bishops. All catholic places tout the healthcare directives, but few follow them like the words say. Wink, wink, here’s an IUD.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact