Catholic Bishops Group Denounces Contraception Compromise

IT'S NOT JUST THE CATHOLICS
In December, a large group of evangelical leaders, including NAE President Leith Anderson, sent a letter to President Obama objecting a mandate under the health care reform law that would require employers to offer insurance coverage for contraception to employees, including treatments that some equate with abortion. The signers also expressed concern that the "religious employer" exemption is too narrow to protect most faith-based organizations.

Dec. 21, 2011

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our deep concern about the contraceptives mandate in the health insurance regulations, and about the “religious employer” exemption that is so narrow that it does not protect most faith-based organizations.

We write to you specifically as organizations and leaders that are not part of the Catholic community. We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations; rather, we write in solidarity, but separately—to stress that religious organizations and leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.

Most press reports on the controversy concerning the contraceptives mandate portray the opposition as coming only from the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations. But this is wrong. It is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include some that are abortifacients. It is not only Catholics who object to the narrow exemption that protects only seminaries and a few churches, but not churches with a social outreach and other faith-based organizations that serve the poor and needy broadly providing help that goes beyond worship and prayer.

The faith-based organizations and religious traditions represented by the undersigned leaders do not all share the same convictions about the moral acceptability of the mandated services. But we are all deeply concerned about the narrow exemption, including proposals made to expand it while still leaving unprotected many faith-based organizations. Many of us previously signed a letter, dated August 26, 2011, to Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, asking his help in persuading your administration, if it maintains the contraceptives mandate, to replace the current “inaccurately narrow and practically inadequate definition of ‘religious employer’.” An organization does not cease to be a religious organization just because it serves the poor and needy in material ways and does not confine its help to prayer and religious teaching.

We reiterate our opposition to the narrow exemption. We wish to stress that we strongly object to a revised exemption that is only broadened enough to include faith-based organizations that are affiliated with a specific denomination. We understand that such a compromise has been proposed to your administration. The suggested compromise discriminates against the many religions that organize themselves in ways other than by being centered on a denomination. Some faith-based organizations have an interdenominational or ecumenical affiliation. Yet others are linked with houses of worship that are not denominational at all. And a significant number of faith-based organizations are not affiliated formally with any house of worship or denomination. Rather, they are, and are considered in Federal law to be, religious organizations because of their religious mission, their faith-shaped internal operations, and their presentation of themselves to the community as religious organizations.1

Continued in the next post

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't even get this correct.
Major portions of the population benefit from government health insurance, not private. Ever heard of CHIP or of Medicaid, you dolt?
The health insurance law also now mandates citizens to obtain some kind of private insurance or else pay a fee...since uninsured people can't be turned away from emergency rooms and the government ultimately picks up that tab. So health insurance is going to be more than just a private contract now. And there have always been regulations over private health insurance contracts, to avoid fraud and misrepresentation and whatnot.

Except we're not talking about Medicaid or CHIP.

We're talking about employee health plans. Until now, that's been, as I stated, a matter of private contract.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
In this case you are probably just ignorant as opposed to your usual tactic of lying. The wacky R. candidates do advocate legislation which would outlaw the most common form of birth control of all - the monthly Pill.(There were one or two R. candidates who did not sign this Pledge in IA, but they're out of the race for not being right wing enough.)
>GOP Candidates Reveal How They Would Enact Pro-Life 'Personhood' Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/gop-...

But, that's not at issue here.
No side is advocating now to outlaw BC. One side wants the mandate scratched.

Mr. President, religious organizations beyond the Catholic community have deep moral objections to a requirement that their health insurance plans must cover abortifacients. Religious organizations beyond the Catholic community object to the current narrow exemption which puts them outside the definition of “religious employers.” And religious organizations beyond the Catholic community object to any revision of the exemption that would limit it to churches and denominationally affiliated organizations.

We believe that the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds, Catholic and non-Catholic. We respectfully ask that your administration, should it maintain the current contraceptives mandate, devise an exemption for religious employers that accurately defines such employers and exempts them from being required to offer to their employees (and students, if they are among America’s many religious colleges and universities) health services to which they have deep religious objections.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals
Wayne L Gordon, President, Christian Community Development Association
John Ashmen, President, Association of Gospel Rescue Missions
Jim Liske, CEO, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Fred L. Potter, Esq., Executive Director and CEO, Christian Legal Society
Colby M. May, Esq., Director & Senior Counsel, Washington Office, American Center for Law & Justice
Dr. Richard Land, President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention

Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President, Focus on the Family

Stanley Carlson-Thies, President, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance

Nathan Diament, Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Vice President for Federal Affairs and Washington Director, Agudath Israel of America

Dr. Gary M. Benedict, President, The Christian and Missionary Alliance

Dr. George O. Wood, General Superintendent, The General Council of the Assemblies of God

Stephanie Summers, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Public Justice

Ron Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference/ Hispanic Evangelical Association

John Holmes, Ed.D., Director of Government Affairs, Association of Christian Schools International

Dr. Keith Wiebe, President, American Association of Christian Schools

Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, Chair, Board of General Superintendents, The Wesleyan Church

Everett Piper, PhD, President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University

Shirley A. Mullen, President, Houghton College

Henry Smith, President, Indiana Wesleyan University

Dr. Todd S. Voss, President, Southern Wesleyan University

Tom Armiger, CEO, World Hope International

Andrew Sears, Executive Director, TechMission

Continued in the next post

Jay Van Groningen, Executive Director, Communities First Association

Karen Woods, Cornerstone Community Resources

Bruce Miller, CEO, Lawndale Christian Health Center

Rev. Steven E. Boes, President and National Executive Director, Boys Town

Paul R. Corts, President, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities

Robert C. Andringa, Ph.D., President Emeritus, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities

Robert H. Spence, President, Evangel University, The National Assemblies of God University of Arts, Sciences & Professions, Springfield, Missouri

Carl E. Zylstra, President, Dordt College

Gordon L. Anderson, Ph.D., President, North Central University

Dr. Todd J. Williams, President, Philadelphia Biblical University

Charles H. Webb, PhD, President, Spring Arbor University

Dr. Lee G. Royce, President, Mississippi College

Jerry B. Cain, President, Judson University

Rick Mann, PhD, President, Crown College

William L. Armstrong, President, Colorado Christian University

Samuel W. "Dub" Oliver, Ph.D., President, East Texas Baptist University

Dr. John C. Bowling, President, Olivet Nazarene University

Joseph Castleberry, Ed.D., President, Northwest University

Dr. Charles W. Pollard, President, John Brown University

Dr. Barbara Bellefeuille, Provost, Toccoa Falls College

Dr. Roger Parrott, President, Belhaven University

Dr John Jackson, President, William Jessup University

Dan Boone, President, Trevecca Nazarene University

Mike E. O'Neal, President, Oklahoma Christian University

Paul J. Maurer, President, Sterling College

James H Barnes III, President, Bethel University

Bob Brower, President, Point Loma Nazarene University

David W. Olive, President, Bluefield College

Jules Glanzer, President, Tabor College

Dr. Loren E. Swartzendruber, President, Eastern Mennonite University

Dr. David C. Alexander, President, Northwest Nazarene University

William M. B. Fleming, Jr., Interim President, Palm Beach Atlantic University

Eric Strattan, lead pastor, Bridge Bible Church, Muskegon, MI

Gail Kraft, Executive Director, Love INC of Muskegon

Case Hoogendoorn, Senior Partner, Hoogendoorn & Talbot LLP, Chicago

Stephen V. Monsma, Senior Research Fellow, The Henry Institute, Calvin College

cc: Joshua DuBois, Executive Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Enterprises
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Department of Health and Human Services

I dont know why he portrays it as only Catholics, when every mainstream protestant denomination, Jewish leaders, Charities, directors of Community action programs, Have all signed and stand against this bill that infringes on all peoples religious freedoms.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Because I didn't look any further than that they lost, that's all.
I wouldn't have guessed as to why this is different than Quakers not wanting to pay taxes. I'd have known.
"And each individual decides whether to opt for BC coverage or not
Someone's buying the coverage that they employee isn't. Who?

The insurance company will pay for it, and will save money.

And you're dodging on the Quaker issue. We KNOW they are devoted pacifists. And we KNOW their tax dollars fund wars and weapons.

So either that is, on its fact, a direct violation of the First Amendment, or else it isn't. So is it, or isn't it?

Yep wrote:

I dont know why he portrays it as only Catholics, when every mainstream protestant denomination, Jewish leaders, Charities, directors of Community action programs, Have all signed and stand against this bill that infringes on all peoples religious freedoms.

I would agree that it's not only Catholics.

I would say it's Catholics + Republicans.

And I bet all of the people on your list fit the latter camp.

Yep wrote:

I dont know why he portrays it as only Catholics, when every mainstream protestant denomination, Jewish leaders, Charities, directors of Community action programs, Have all signed and stand against this bill that infringes on all peoples religious freedoms.

Catholics have the biggest stake in it as they run more enterprises outside the realm of the church proper.

Far-sighted religious folks know that even if they aren't of one mind with the Catholics and BC, it'll be their ox that gets gored next.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The insurance company will pay for it, and will save money.
And you're dodging on the Quaker issue. We KNOW they are devoted pacifists. And we KNOW their tax dollars fund wars and weapons.
So either that is, on its fact, a direct violation of the First Amendment, or else it isn't. So is it, or isn't it?

I guess not, since they're still obliged to pay taxes after innumerable court challenges.

Again, read the case law if you're that hung up on it.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The insurance company will pay for it, and will save money.
And you're dodging on the Quaker issue. We KNOW they are devoted pacifists. And we KNOW their tax dollars fund wars and weapons.
So either that is, on its fact, a direct violation of the First Amendment, or else it isn't. So is it, or isn't it?

Found a Quaker case cited, since you're only interested in me doing your research on your behalf.
Source:http://www.firstamendme ntcenter.org/federal-appeals-c ourt-quaker-must-pay-federal-t axes
Excerpt of decision by 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:
“the uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest” and “as a result, requiring petitioner’s participation in the Federal income tax system is the only, and thus least restrictive means of furthering the Government’s interest.”
I know I mentioned "compelling interest" several times last week.
That's why they have to pay taxes.
Same principle will govern this matter when it hits a court, and someone will have to argue that free BC serves a governmental interest so compelling that it vitiates first amendment proceedings.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
But, that's not at issue here.
No side is advocating now to outlaw BC. One side wants the mandate scratched.

The "Pledge" to work to outlaw forms of birth control speaks to your ignorant, blanket lie that "no one" wants to outlaw birth control.

Lots of people do want to, you now cannot deny. And obviously this mandate under discussion, from which churches are exempted, allows "religious" nuts to make birth control harder to access for secular people. It's not quite making birth control illegal, but it's a step towards that for the "religious" freeeks.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Catholics have the biggest stake in it as they run more enterprises outside the realm of the church proper.

Exactly. "Outside the realm of the church proper."

The churches are exempt. The non profits run by the church employ many who are secular or non Catholic or Catholic who wish to use birth control.

That's a secular matter, much as Catholic adoption agencies that get taxpayer monies and then try to discriminate against glbt people is a secular matter. Not a church matter. A matter of the public sphere.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>The "Pledge" to work to outlaw forms of birth control speaks to your ignorant, blanket lie that "no one" wants to outlaw birth control.

Lots of people do want to, you now cannot deny. And obviously this mandate under discussion, from which churches are exempted, allows "religious" nuts to make birth control harder to access for secular people. It's not quite making birth control illegal, but it's a step towards that for the "religious" freeeks.

no one is making BC control harder to get. The churches just are not going to pay for it. It is just as easy to get now as it was before and will be after. But the church isn't going to pay for it.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
The "Pledge" to work to outlaw forms of birth control speaks to your ignorant, blanket lie that "no one" wants to outlaw birth control.
Lots of people do want to, you now cannot deny. And obviously this mandate under discussion, from which churches are exempted, allows "religious" nuts to make birth control harder to access for secular people. It's not quite making birth control illegal, but it's a step towards that for the "religious" freeeks.

Sidebar here.

People want lots of things. BC will never be outlawed.

Now, BC can be obtained privately, via many health plans and free at many places.

If the mandate never existed, BC would be avaiable as I stated. Not one bit less accessible than it is now.

"Access" doesn't equal "free". Still doesn't.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. "Outside the realm of the church proper."
The churches are exempt. The non profits run by the church employ many who are secular or non Catholic or Catholic who wish to use birth control.
That's a secular matter, much as Catholic adoption agencies that get taxpayer monies and then try to discriminate against glbt people is a secular matter. Not a church matter. A matter of the public sphere.

It's not a secular matter.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
People want lots of things. BC will never be outlawed.

I'm glad you conceded your ignorant lie that "no one" involved in this debate wishes to outlaw birth control.

Since the Pledge indicates that the remaining R. candidates for President signed does wish that. And the Pledge is promulgated, of course, by "religious" freeeks, although they admittedly tend to be more fundie than Franco type Catholics.

I have to agree that birth control will never be outlawed. We are speaking of intent.

Similarly, I think in the long run health insurance policies are going to cover birth control, whether "religious" freeeks wish to maintain their control over women's sexuality (or non procreative sex) or not.

Except for church health insurance policies. They are and have been exempt for a long time.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
no one is making BC control harder to get. The churches just are not going to pay for it. It is just as easy to get now as it was before and will be after. But the church isn't going to pay for it.

Again, lying homophobe, the RCC and the right wing, "religious" nuts are _still_ objecting to the suggestion of having someone other than the non profit institutions pay for the birth control coverage offered in the institutions' employee health plans.

It's not about paying for it. Otherwise the RCC would be happy with the compromise.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>Again, lying homophobe, the RCC and the right wing, "religious" nuts are _still_ objecting to the suggestion of having someone other than the non profit institutions pay for the birth control coverage offered in the institutions' employee health plans.

It's not about paying for it. Otherwise the RCC would be happy with the compromise.

it is only about paying for it. Yours lies won't change that.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. "Outside the realm of the church proper."
The churches are exempt. The non profits run by the church employ many who are secular or non Catholic or Catholic who wish to use birth control.
That's a secular matter, much as Catholic adoption agencies that get taxpayer monies and then try to discriminate against glbt people is a secular matter. Not a church matter. A matter of the public sphere.

No one forces a non Catholic to work at a Catholic instituion.

Employee restrictions are common place in society.

Birth control has always been a matter of contention as a matter of reimbursement by insurance companies even in the secular sphere.

Health insurance exists to treat disease. Pregnancy and sex are not diseases.