/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
What would Diedrich Bonhoeffer have to say about the HHS mandate? Eric Metaxas—best selling author of Bonhoeffer:Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy—explains in this brief video on the dangers to religious liberty posed by the mandate.
June 25th, 2012 | 9:25 am
The video states that HHS mandates that “social service providers pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilizations through their health insurance plans.” This is not true. The regulation that would require that is not being enforced, and a new one is being written. It will not be the insuring organizations that will be required to pay for any of these things. It will be the insurance company, and only after the insurance company (not the organization providing the insurance) contacts the insured, offers them the coverage, and the insured request it.
Plan B and ella, the two most discussed drugs, have not been proven to be “abortion inducing,” and in fact the evidence points more and more to the conclusion that they are not.
Eric Metaxas claims that once we go “one millimeter” across the line, we have lost religious liberty. That makes no sense. There is no bright line for religious liberty. It is not absolute. Courts have to draw lines all the time, and they have far more than one millimeter leeway.
Jennifer Roback Morse says that those who refuse to comply will be “faced with onerous fines, going out of business, or being taken over by the state.” The fines for declining to provide insurance are $2000 per employee, which is considerably less than it costs to insure an employee. Dropping insurance saves money. Now, will, say, a Catholic hospital who stops providing its employees insurance be at a competitive disadvantage and lose employees to other hospitals? It depends on what arrangements it makes with its employees. As for noncompliant organizations being “taken over by the state,” that is pure fantasy.
I think the contraceptive mandate is religious liberty issue, and there are good arguments against it. However, they weren’t to be found in this video.
June 25th, 2012 | 10:46 am
Hi, David Nickol,
I think the contraceptive mandate is religious liberty issue, and there are good arguments against it.
What, according to you, are those good arguments?
June 25th, 2012 | 2:21 pm
David, the distinction you make has so little difference that it does not suffice to make the quoted statement “not true.” The statement is true in every way that actually matters to anything. It is no less true than to say that all business owners who provide annual gift baskets to their employees are required to buy them bacon, though the actual law might stipulate that all purveyors of gift baskets must, by law, include bacon, not that business owners who buy baskets are actually “required” to buy bacon.
June 25th, 2012 | 2:27 pm
What, according to you, are those good arguments?
harry,
It does seem to me that, although indirectly, the government is putting certain religious institutions in a position where they must make a choice of conscience that they would not otherwise have to make. I don’t think it is a matter of forcing anyone to choose to do evil. Rick Garnett over on Mirror of Justice said something that stuck in my mind. He said he was not so much interested in the argument that the mandate would force cooperation with evil. He was more interested in the freedom of organizations to carry out their missions. Here is a quote from Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame that I think reflects that thought:
I don’t think this is a black-and-white case. I think the Catholic Church is in a much weaker position than it might otherwise be if it had resisted state mandates more strongly going back ten years. It is a little late to say they will never comply when many organizations already have complied with similar mandates imposed by the states (particularly in California and New York).
I think it is partly a question of “render unto Caesar.” It seems to me a Catholic hospital is so close to being identical to any other non-profit hospital that a good case could be made that it should follow the same laws as any other hospital. Other Catholic businesses or organizations might be quite different.
The real question isn’t whether the contraceptive mandate infringes on some people’s religious freedom. It is difficult to say that it doesn’t to some extent. But of course it applies to all employers who provides insurance, meaning it is not targeted at religious employers and is not discriminatory. Everyone agrees that religious freedom is not absolute. The question is whether this law that applies to everyone is important enough to the public health that the government can limit exceptions to it in such a way that only limited and reasonable demands are made on religious organizations. I have a feeling that because the CHA has spoken out, there may be further changes to the HHS approach, and some kind of further accommodation can be reached. If not, I trust the courts to settle the matter fairly. Of course, if Obama is not reelected, the whole question will be moot.
June 25th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
pentamom,
I disagree. The quote is “social service providers pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilizations through their health insurance plans.” If the insurance companies absorb the costs of X, the organization that pays for the insurance doesn’t pay for X. There are many arguments that might be made. You might argue that the insurance company won’t really absorb the cost but will just pass it along. But as long as the insurance company pays for X, the purchaser of the insurance doesn’t pay for it. If you want to reword it and say that whatever the case, the organization providing the insurance will really be providing X, you might have a case. But to say they are paying for it is simply not true.
It is no less true than to say that all business owners who provide annual gift baskets to their employees are required to buy them bacon, though the actual law might stipulate that all purveyors of gift baskets must, by law, include bacon, not that business owners who buy baskets are actually “required” to buy bacon.
This is not an exact analogy. Contraceptive coverage will not automatically come to the insured employees. The insurance company will contact each person who is insured and ask the person whether he or she wants contraception coverage. The people who say yes will get it free. The people who say no will not get it. Suppose the employer is Jewish and has a lot of Jewish employees, and everyone who gets a picnic basket is asked by the company who assembles the basket if they want a free package of bacon. None of the Jews ask for it, but some of the Gentiles do. The Jewish employer is not forced to give all the employees (including the Jewish ones) bacon. The employer may reasonably assume that Jews who keep kosher will not request the bacon.
June 25th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Hello, David Nickol,
The government certainly is doing that and promising punishment of some kind or another if loyalty to one’s deepest convictions makes compliance with its mandate in good conscience impossible.
You don’t think it is a matter of forcing anyone to do evil. I don’t see anything evil in eating pork, yet I would vehemently oppose a federal mandate that required those who do to include it in their diet. Do you, in the same way, oppose the HHS mandate out of respect for the convictions of others? Or do you support it because YOU don’t think it is “forcing anyone to choose to do evil.”
I think everyone would oppose a federal mandate that put those whose religious convictions prohibited the consumption of pork “in a position where they must make a choice of conscience that they would not otherwise have to make,” except, of course, the ignorant, and those who are completely insensitive to the religious convictions of others, and those who are on a mission to undermine that religious belief because, for whatever reason, it is an obstacle to the fulfillment of their agenda.
It is the same with the HHS mandate. If reasonable people with a normal sensitivity to the religious convictions of others – even though they don’t understand the convictions of those who do not eat pork – would oppose a pork consumption mandate, then they should also oppose a federal mandate that forces orthodox Catholics to be involved in what they believe to be a serious violation of God’s plan for human sexuality, as well as forcing their indirect participation in taking the lives of innocent human beings through involvement in the provision of abortifacient contraception. (And don’t kid yourself, David, some forms of contraception are often, if not always, abortifacient.)
So which is it for the Obama administration? Ignorance? A stunning callousness towards the religious convictions of orthodox Catholics? Or is it that the beliefs of orthodox Catholics are an obstacle to the complete implementation of the social engineering called for by their agenda?
June 25th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
harry,
It is not that I don’t understand the Catholic objections to contraception and sterilization. I simply do not think, based on my understanding of Catholic principles, that it would be doing evil for an employer to purchase insurance for employees even with the understanding that the insurance company is going to offer those employees coverage of medications and procedures the employer objects to. And of course no employer is forced to buy insurance. They may have to pay $2000 per employee if they do not, but that is a reasonable alternative if they think providing insurance under the circumstances is objectionable. As I keep saying, it costs more than $2000 to insure an employee. The alleged cooperation with evil is too remote to be considered an evil in and of itself, in my opinion.
This is not like forcing Jews or Muslims to eat pork. It is more like requiring Jewish or Muslim supermarket cashiers to scan items that customers buy that contain pork.
Take the birth control pill. It is not wrong to buy or sell the birth control pill. It is not even wrong for Catholic women to take the birth control pill, as long as it is for some reason other than contraception (such as treating endometriosis). What is wrong is for a Catholic woman to take the birth control pill and engage in sex with her husband with the intent of preventing conception. So what is wrong is the sex act. To what extent are her employers responsible for that? Or even the insurance company? And of course one of the major arguments of those who oppose the mandate is that contraceptives are cheap and people can easily afford them without insurance providing them “free.” But it seems to me this is an argument that cuts both ways. If contraceptives are so cheap and readily available that anyone can easily obtain and use them, how serious can it be be remotely involved in providing them?
As I keep saying, if it really were evil to provide insurance coverage that included contraception, the Catholic Church would be much more believable now if they had dug in their heels ten years ago when states began mandating contraceptive coverage.
June 25th, 2012 | 8:22 pm
But David, the with-bacon baskets cost the same to the employees as the without-bacon baskets, so the employer is obviously paying for the bacon, for those who choose to accept it. The Jewish employers happen to thinking that buying bacon is equal to being responsible for the consumption of bacon (not an unreasonable position) which is an abomination to them. The basket-assemblers are not taking a loss on the with-bacon baskets.
June 26th, 2012 | 1:34 am
In many ways it seems that the most troubling part of the mandate is that it draws the circle even more narrowly in terms of what sorts of organizations are considered religious organizations and, as has already been mentioned, unnecessarily and harmfully forces religious institutions to weigh whether they can in good conscience offer services for the public and the common good.
At the same time, David Nichol is right that there are always certain agreed upon restrictions to religious liberty. For example, I imagine far fewer Americans would find it problematic to require employers–including non-profits–that were associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses to provide for blood transfusions than there are folks who find the contraception/sterilization/abortion issue problematic. A lot more could be said about this, but where I really have the question is in another arena.
The public conversation has focused on who pays for specific treatments etc…, and whether it is moral or constitutional to mandate that a religious institution provide insurance that covers procedures or treatments that they find objectionable rather than on the question of who defines religious institutions. The deeper question, to my mind, is related to individual choice. Insurance is a benefit that is simply one part of a persons compensation, and many people put forward a certain amount of their monetary compensation to pay for a portion of their own insurance. If it is morally objectionable for an institution to pay for an insurance policy that would, in the event the individual chose to avail themselves of a certain service, cover a treatment that the employer felt was immoral, then why is it *not* morally objectionable to provide a salary to a person who might go out and choose pay for the same procedure out of pocket. Simply having the option of having a treatment covered by insurance doesn’t mean that a person will choose to use it, and not covering it doesn’t ensure that a person might not use other resources provided by their employer to attain it. In the end, it seems that they are the same degree of separation away and the real issue is that an institution is employing folks whose moral reasoning they find questionable or lacking.
June 26th, 2012 | 9:03 am
“This is not like forcing Jews or Muslims to eat pork. It is more like requiring Jewish or Muslim supermarket cashiers to scan items that customers buy that contain pork. ”
No. It is like requiring Jewish people who buy their friends gifts to only shop at stores that include “free” pork (that someone must be paying for, and that someone by practical necessity is the customers of that store) in every sale, if the customer desires it to be put in the package. The fact that not everyone asks it to be put in the package does not negate the fact that for those who do, the person buying the package is ultimately paying for it.
If you don’t see a moral distinction in the level of involvement between a service worker picking something up and handling it, and the purchaser of a good paying for it, I guess you won’t change your mind on this one. But moral theology and philosophy of most kinds has always recognized the distinction between handling something, and actually providing something at one’s own cost to someone else.
June 26th, 2012 | 10:14 am
Hello, David Nickol,
I am sure you think you understand the Catholic objections, but I doubt that you do. The unity and the intensity of the opposition of the U.S. Catholic bishops to the HHS mandate is unprecedented. Apparently the Bishops and an army of theologians don’t share your confidence that “the alleged cooperation with evil is too remote to be considered an evil in and of itself,” or appreciate your explanation of what a great deal it is to have an ongoing expense of $2000 per employee without getting anything in return for it.
That is true. We are talking about forced involvement in taking the lives of innocent human beings with abortifacient contraception.
No. It is more like forcing one to be involved in the slave trade. In every age, it seems, some segment of the human family becomes the victims of the bigotry of the times. In the present age those victims are the youngest human beings.
Forcing orthodox Catholics to be involved in the distribution of abortifacient contraception is something like forcing Abolitionists to be involved in the distribution of shackles and whips to be used in managing slaves, only worse. And attempting to get those whose minds have been closed by bigotry to understand the problem with the HHS Mandate is like getting slave traders and plantation owners to see the light.
Not that I expect saying so to do any good, but: We are talking about the lives of innocent, albeit very young, human beings whose humanity comes with an inalienable, God-given right to life, regardless of your opinions – that is why the human right to life is inalienable – because neither your opinion, nor a decision of the Supreme Court, can withdraw that right from an innocent human being, anymore than the Supreme Court ruling the Earth is flat would make it so.
Those of us not blinded by contemporary bigotry do not want to be involved in taking the lives of innocent human beings.
June 26th, 2012 | 2:02 pm
“For example, I imagine far fewer Americans would find it problematic to require employers–including non-profits–that were associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses to provide for blood transfusions than there are folks who find the contraception/sterilization/abortion issue problematic”
PastorJody, I know this was not your main concern, but I think it is worth noting that some of the limits placed on religious liberty in medical cases are explained by the seriousness of the condition. The person who needs a blood transfusion is in critical condition, either badly injured or gravely ill. They will probably die without the transfusion. They cannot do this themselves. They need treatment by trained medical personnel at a hospital. A choice to use contraception and a need for a blood transfusion do not compare.
June 26th, 2012 | 2:55 pm
I am sure you think you understand the Catholic objections, but I doubt that you do.
harry,
I understand. I just don’t feel the same way you and many others do, in part because I don’t agree even on some factual matters. I think Plan B, for example, has no post-fertilization effects, and I think there is reasonable certainty that ella does not either. So I don’t accept the argument about abortifacients. I don’t think contraception and even sterilization are necessarily evil, so while I understand that some Catholics don’t want to be linked to them, and I think forcing Catholics to use or pay for them would be a violation of religious liberty, I don’t feel as strongly about it as you do, and I also no doubt see a bigger difference than you do about actually being required to pay for them and having them come to some employees at no cost as a consequence providing those employees with insurance.
Also, as I have said many times before, I find the campaign of resistance comes rather late, given the fact that some state mandates have been around for more than a decade. It is very difficult to stand united and say, “We will never comply!” when some have already complied.
June 26th, 2012 | 6:02 pm
Hello, David Nickol,
Enlighten yourself here, for example:
http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html
Or quickly find a wealth of other material along the same lines by doing a little Googling.
Roe v Wade brought about quite a reaction even though abortion had already been legal for a while in a few states. There is, unsurprisingly, quite a reaction to the federal HHS mandate regardless of what has happened in some states that is similar to it. I suppose the federalization of an injustice will always bring about more intense resistance across the country than whatever happens in a few states.
What exactly is your point? If injustice isn’t met immediately, with full force and successfully, then one has no right to confront it at all? All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to depend on you for inspiration? What?
June 26th, 2012 | 9:40 pm
Peg,
I agree with you that they are generally not of the same seriousness, however, some of the drugs used primarily as contraceptives are used to treat other problems that are more serious than simply wishing to avoid children.
While the issue is related to seriousness, it is also related to public perceptions of morality. The great majority of people believe blood transfusions to be both necessary and not even morally ambiguous so the protests of religious folks who disagree is seen as more of a fringe belief. Currently contraception/sterilization and abortion are more controversial among religious folks. I am a member of a predominantly liberal denomination but these issues are far from broadly accepted among our folks–perhaps partially because of the region of the country we live in, but I prefer to think it’s because they have informed consciences and take ethical issues seriously.
All that is to say, most of these issues are controversial today *only* among religious folks, the secular majority having acquiesced to them long ago. As public perceptions of morality shift to make those values held by religious people seem more extreme, the seriousness of a particular treatment will matter less and less as those of us with reservations just seem more and more bizarre, so that the system will take our protests less seriously.
June 27th, 2012 | 11:51 am
Enlighten yourself here, for example
harry,
Do you seriously expect me to take information from the Life Issues Institute seriously? If I referred you to Planned Parenthood or NARAL on the topic of abortifacients, would you even bother to read what they had to say? You don’t got to advocacy organizations on either side of a hot-button issue for unbiased information.
What exactly is your point? If injustice isn’t met immediately, with full force and successfully, then one has no right to confront it at all?
Did I say that? I said this:
And I said this:
That is true no matter what your opinion on the mandate is.
June 27th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
Hi, David Nickol,
Realizing that, I suggested you Google up the information yourself.
You might find this article on the Live Science web site helpful:
Why Mississippi’s ‘Personhood’ Law Could Outlaw Birth Control
Here is an excerpt:
Surely you can verify for yourself that abortion rights advocates opposing Personhood Amendment initiatives claim that such laws will outlaw some forms of contraception. They are right about that. Contraceptives are often abortifacients. They hate to admit that, but must do so when it comes to Personhood Amendment initiatives that look like they just might be successful. The rest of the time they take the position you are taking now, as it is better PR. The truth is not a particularly significant factor in their decisions about what spin to put on a given controversy: HHS mandate? “Contraception isn’t abortifacient!!!” Personhood Amendment? “Protecting fertilized eggs will outlaw contraception!!!” Nobody can lie for as long as they have been lying and not have it catch up with them eventually.
June 27th, 2012 | 4:47 pm
“I agree with you that they are generally not of the same seriousness, however, some of the drugs used primarily as contraceptives are used to treat other problems that are more serious than simply wishing to avoid children.”
Hi, ParsonJody: As far as I know, there is no Catholic moral objection to using those drugs for those non-contraceptive purposes. I know several faithful Catholics who have been prescribed such medication to treat painful conditions, not to prevent conception, and they encountered no moral condemnation or objection. This was mostly back in high school in the 1970s, the girls were not sexually active, and we had lively (and humorous) discussions on the topic!
In the case of the HHS mandate, I do not know that Catholic employers/insurers have objected to the prescription of such drugs to treat illnesses or abnormal/painful conditions, either. It’s the pregnancy prevention purpose that is objectionable and they don’t want to pay for it.
June 27th, 2012 | 8:14 pm
harry,
Anyone who claims to know with certainty that oral contraceptives or emergency contraceptives are “abortifacients” (have a post-fertilization effect) is making an unwarranted claim. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) offers two position papers on oral contraception, and one says oral contraceptives are not abortifacients, while the other says they are. Finding solid, objective information on this topic by googling is next to impossible.
June 28th, 2012 | 1:41 am
Hello, David,
AAPLOG physicians may argue among themselves all they want, but, on the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) website you can get the facts. The following is in regards to only oral contraceptives:
The “Mechanism of Action” section of the “Concise Monograph” PDR page for Cyclessa (other brand names: Cesia, Velivet):
The “reducing likelihood of implantation” means that sometimes the brand new human being isn’t prevented from coming about; he or she does, but dies because the child can’t implant itself in the uterus due to the hostile environment created there by the oral contraceptive.
The “reducing likelihood of implantation” wording in the “Mechanism of Action” section for Cyclessa also appears for
- Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 (other brand name: Nortrel 7/7/7)
- Seasonique
- Zovia (other brand name: Kelnor)
- Lo Loestrin Fe
- Aviane (other brand name: Orysthia)
- Norinyl 1/50 (other brand name: Necon 1/50)
and probably any others that are also estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives.
Many forms of contraception — even oral contraceptives — are abortifacient. Get used to it.
June 28th, 2012 | 7:21 am
“Plan B and ella, the two most discussed drugs, have not been proven to be “abortion inducing,” and in fact the evidence points more and more to the conclusion that they are not.”
So pro-life people should go ahead and provide them to their employees or themselves, because maybe they are, maybe they are not, abortifacients? We should give the benefit of the doubt to the “maybe not” hypothesis?
I know that medical sites that promoted “Ella” warned users not to use it if they might be pregnant. This was before the HHS brouhaha, though, and I have not looked lately to see if they
still do so.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact