WASHINGTON (CNS) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Jan. 25 dismissed a lawsuit filed against the federal contraceptive mandate by the Archdiocese of Washington and its co-plaintiffs, saying the case is premature in light of the government’s “promises to amend the mandate.”

“Importantly, this ruling was not based on the merits of our case,” said a statement issued by the archdiocese.

“In fact, the court’s ruling today places the onus squarely on the government,” it said, “to fulfill its binding commitment to address the religious freedom concerns” of the archdiocese, The Catholic University of America, the Consortium of Catholic Academies, Archbishop Carroll High School and Catholic Charities of D.C.

“This requires the government to revise its HHS mandate in a way that truly respects our right to serve all those in need without violating our religious beliefs,” the archdiocese said.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling, saying that “if after the new regulations are issued, plaintiffs are still not satisfied, any challenges that they choose to bring will be substantially different from the challenges in the current complaint.”

Jackson was referring to the federal government stating that it will publish notice of proposed rulemaking in the first quarter of this year and issue a final rule on the mandate before August. In the meantime, the Obama administration has in place a “safe harbor” period that protects employers from immediate government action against them if they fail to comply with the mandate.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires employers, including most religious employers, to include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-inducing drugs free of charge, even if the employer is morally opposed to such services.

The requirement, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, has a narrow exemption that applies only to those religious institutions that seek to inculcate their religious values and primarily employ and serve people of their own faith. It does not include a conscience clause for employers who object to providing such coverage.

One proposed accommodation from the government would allow those employers who object to providing contraceptives to pass on the costs of the mandated coverage to their insurance carriers or a third party, rather than pay for them directly. But many dioceses are self-insured, and Catholic officials say the policy would offer no fundamental change.

Jackson’s decision “was based on two commitments the government made to the court in this case and others: first, that the mandate as currently written will never be enforced against us; and second, that the mandate will be revised in a way that addresses our religious freedom concerns by March 31, 2013,” the archdiocesan statement said.

A U.S. District Court judge in Brooklyn has ruled that a lawsuit challenging the federal contraceptive mandate filed by the Archdiocese of New York and two other Catholic entities can move forward.
The defendants – the U.S. departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury – filed a request that the case be dismissed, claiming the mandate is not causing “imminent injury” and that the government plans changes to accommodate religious groups that object to the requirement on moral grounds.
The HHS mandate requires employers – including most religious employers – to provide free coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-inducing drugs free in employee health insurance. A narrow exemption applies only to those religious institutions that seek to inculcate their religious values and primarily employ and serve people of their own faith.
In his decision, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern district of New York, rejected the defendants’ claim, saying the mandate “has caused and will continue to cause plaintiffs harm so long as it remains in place.”
“The departments’ possible decision to amend their policies does not abrogate plaintiffs’ right to seek relief for their injuries,” he said.
“The First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action,” Cogan said. “There is no ‘Trust us changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.”
“We are pleased that Judge Cogan has allowed the lawsuit to proceed,” said Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the New York Archdiocese. “We look forward to proceeding to the merits of our claims.”
“It is noteworthy that, with this decision, the court has recognized that the Archdiocese of New York and other plaintiffs in this case are facing current and imminent harm from the government’s contraception coverage mandate,” he said.

WASHINGTON (CNS) – Americans United for Life filed a brief Nov. 13 in Nebraska v. Health and Human Services, a case initiated by the state of Nebraska and six other states challenging the HHS mandate requiring most employers, including religious employers, to provide free coverage of contraceptives.

The Washington-based group filed the brief on behalf of the Catholic Medical Association, the National Catholic Bioethics Center and five other national medical organizations, saying that the group they represent – physicians, bioethicists and other health care professionals – has a “profound interest in defending the sanctity of human life in their roles as health care providers, medical experts, and consumers.”

It also said in the brief’s introduction that these members “are supportive of a variety of public, private, and charitable efforts that address health care affordability and accessibility” but they oppose the contraceptive mandate of the health care law because it “violates sincerely held religious beliefs and freedom of conscience.”

The HHS mandate requires most employers, including religious employers, to provide insurance coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-inducing drugs free of charge, even if the employer is morally opposed to such services.

A narrow exemption applies only to those religious institutions that seek to inculcate their religious values and primarily employ and serve people of their own faith. The mandate does not include a conscience clause for employers who object to such coverage on moral grounds.

The Nebraska case is being heard on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis. The U.S. District Court for Nebraska in Omaha dismissed the case.

It is one of at least 38 cases that have been filed across the nation by Catholic dioceses and other Catholic entities, but the only case that has been filed on behalf of a group of states: Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. Also joining the states were several Catholic and other nonprofit organizations.

The states had explained to the lower court that because the mandate offends the beliefs of some religious organizations, those organizations may opt to cease providing health insurance coverage to their employees.

The states argued that this would cause an immediate and substantial increase in enrollment in state Medicaid programs, further burdening already strained programs and threatening budgetary stability.

However, the lower court dismissed the case, claiming that the states did not have standing to file suit.

The Americans United for Life brief also explained that the states and private plaintiffs are not protected by the Obama administration’s “safe harbor,” a yearlong period that protects employers from immediate government action against them if they fail to comply with the mandate. The final rule on the mandate takes effect in August, 2013.

by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is the fifth of a series on issues related to the upcoming presidential election.

This past Thursday, Oct. 18, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney were scheduled to share the dais of the 67th annual Alfred E. Smith Dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan. The dinner is named after the first Catholic candidate who ran for the office of the President of the United States in 1928. Governor Al Smith of New York was narrowly defeated by President Herbert Hoover in November of that same year.

Governor Smith’s Roman Catholicism was a central issue in the campaign, and the reason why many political analysts believe he lost that election. How far have we Catholics come that both Vice President Joe Biden and the challenger, Congressman Paul Ryan, are Roman Catholics.

However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Roman Catholicism and the teachings of the Church have been very evidently on display in this campaign, with two drastically different approaches to involving faith in the public square, which was evidently clear as it was discussed in the vice presidential candidates’ debate.

Each of the candidates deliberated the impact of the universal health care legislation upon the life of the Church and Catholics. Congressman Ryan communicated Catholic teaching on the right to life when he expressed seeing his unborn daughter’s heartbeat at seven weeks. On the other hand, it is unfortunate how Vice President Biden misrepresented the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate and inaccurately represented what this law will do.

Vice President Biden’s assertion during the debate was factually incorrect, as he stated: “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. As stated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops the day following the vice presidential debate: “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 hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital,’ or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

“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.”

There are in fact legal challenges that are still pending. This is a dramatic and unprecedented imposition on the free exercise of religion. This is the reason why it is so important to not just be aware of the issues but to actually be engaged, and to actually bring our faith into the voting booth. We must always and everywhere be proponents of the dignity and sanctity of human life and marriage, and at the same time stand up for the needs of the poor and the stranger in our midst.

As we put out into the deep this week, let us contemplate what Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta once reminded us, “God doesn’t require us to succeed, He only requires that you try.” There is no perfect Catholic candidate and there is no Catholic political party. But it is clear that there are some forces at work in politics today that are discriminating against the Church.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (CNS) – The Diocese of Nashville and seven of the Catholic entities operating in middle Tennessee have filed suit in federal court to block implementation of a mandate by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring them to cover services they find morally objectionable.

The mandate, which went into effect Aug. 1 as part of the health care reform law, requires all employers to provide coverage in their health care plans for contraceptives, including some that can cause abortions and sterilizations. The mandate has a limited religious exemption that would protect only Catholic institutions that seek to inculcate Catholic values and primarily employ and serve Catholics.

Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Father Ryan High School, Pope John Paul II High School, Mary Queen of Angels assisted living facility, Villa Maria Manor and St. Mary Villa Child Development Center, along with Aquinas College, which is owned and operated by the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia Congregation, are all independently incorporated.

There was broad support within each of their boards of directors for filing the suits, which are similar to more than a dozen others filed around the country in late May and August.

Nashville Bishop David R. Choby said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had engaged “the president and congressional leaders in Washington in a conversation which expressed our concerns and convictions. … Basically we were rebuffed.”

“We believe that our Constitution and form of government expresses the right to religious freedom. Such a right is much deeper and of greater consequence than freedom to worship,” Bishop Choby said.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (CNS) – The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) mandate that would force many religious institutions to provide free contraceptives against their consciences is illegal, former U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Sept. 4 during a meeting of pro-life Democrats.

During debate over the legislation that would become the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Stupak negotiated an executive order with the Obama administration that guaranteed the act would not violate the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding for any abortion or abortion-related care. The HHS mandate violates that executive order, as well as the Hyde Amendment itself, Stupak believes.

“Specifically, as written, it violates the law and violates the executive order,” said Stupak, who decided not to seek re-election after passage of the health reform law.

Last year, as her agency set forth the nuts and bolts of the Affordable Care Act, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declared that nearly all employers must include free contraception and sterilization services in their health insurance policies.

HHS drafted a narrow exemption for religious employers who object to providing contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs as mandated, but to be exempted they must serve and hire people primarily of their own faith.

Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations would not qualify under that standard; they would either have to provide such coverage in violation of Catholic teaching, pay steep annual fines in order to keep providing health insurance to their employees and students or stop providing health insurance entirely.

Bewildered and Perplexed

Stupak said he was “bewildered” and “perplexed” by the HHS mandate when it was announced last summer. Religious organizations led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops bristled, and under the vocal leadership of Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, conference president, they fought back.

They denounced the move at first, asking the Obama administration to back off the HHS mandate.

by Nancy Frazier O’Brien

WASHINGTON (CNS) – Since the courts will not act quickly enough to protect the religious liberty concerns prompted by the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate, Congress must “address this urgent and fundamental issue before it completes its business this year,” Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo told members of the House and Senate.

“Timely and uniform protection of these rights cannot be expected from the current lengthy judicial process,” said the cardinal in an Aug. 3 letter to members of Congress. He is archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Cardinal DiNardo described the contraceptive mandate as an “unprecedented and misguided federal policy.”

“The Catholic bishops of the United States continue to advocate for life-affirming health care for all, especially for poor and vulnerable people,” he wrote. “We do not see this policy as a step in that direction.”

Cardinal DiNardo said that despite “widespread opposition to this coercive policy by religious organizations, lawmakers and the general public, Congress has still taken no action to counter it.”

“The time for such action is, to say the least, overdue,” he added. “The fundamental importance of the religious freedom issue at stake demands a timely congressional response.”

The cardinal said the requirement to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge will likely affect for-profit business owners first. He noted that four of the lawsuits against the mandate have been filed by Catholic business owners.

“These are devout individuals and families who own and operate businesses who, without any word of protest from employees, have been offering health coverage that does not violate their moral convictions,” he said. “In effect, if an organization is ‘for-profit’ it is not allowed to be ‘for’ anything else.

“The owners who have imbued their companies with faith-based commitments to employee well-being, community service and social responsibility strongly disagree,” Cardinal DiNardo wrote. “And at a time of grave concern over business and banking scandals, does anyone think that rewarding businesses obsessed solely with company profits is sound government policy?”

The cardinal noted that a federal judge had granted a temporary stay to Hercules Industries, a Denver-based business owned by the Catholic Newland family, ruling that any “public interest” served by the mandate is “countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

“However, this welcome and sensible initial decision marks only the beginning of even the Newland family’s court battle,” he said. “It does not affect companies filing suit in other states, or even the many thoroughly religious nonprofit organizations whose religious character has always been obvious to most people.

“Vindication of the fundamental rights of these individuals and organizations may take years of litigation,” he added.

Cardinal DiNardo said the mandate and the narrow religious exemption to it represent “an approach to religious freedom that is more grudging and arbitrary than any yet seen in federal law.” In addition, he said, “few really know whether their request for exemption will be accepted by the government or not.”

Coverage of contraceptives and sterilization “will be imposed ‘automatically’ on these organizations’ employees and their dependent teenage children, regardless of the moral or religious objections of the employer or employee,” he said. “Yet some have cynically said this policy ensures female employees’ right to make their own choice on health coverage.”

Two bills addressing areas of the health reform bill the Catholic bishops say are problematic – the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which has been incorporated into the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 – are deadlocked in Congress.

by Jerry and Anna Parisella

Dear Mr. Vice President:

We have been enthusiastic supporters of your and President Obama’s fair and wise domestic and foreign policies. There is one policy, however, that is unsupportable and is considered of such long-term, precedent-setting consequence that it trumps all other issues – the HHS Mandate.

We are respectfully writing to you, as our nation’s first Catholic vice president, in the hope that you will persuade President Obama to see what a profound error he is making in failing to include in the Affordable Care Act language exempting Catholic, or any bona fide religious-affiliated organization from the requirement to include in its employee health plans coverage for abortions, abortifacient drugs, sterilization and contraceptives.

Government compelling a religious-affiliated organization to support the provision of products or services that compromise its moral beliefs and teachings is an affront to personal conscience, religious liberty and the long tradition of separation of church and state.

As a respected legislator, you can recognize how the HHS Mandate, as currently written, violates the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

As a Catholic, you presumably can appreciate how threatening the current HHS Mandate is to the conscience, codes of conduct and mission statements of the many Catholic hospitals, schools, universities and charities that have played a vital role in the development of this country and in meeting the health, education, financial and spiritual needs of the American people. Those Catholic organizations are not alone but are joined by numerous Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish and other religious-affiliated organizations that also find the HHS Mandate objectionable.

Our first Catholic President, John F. Kennedy, made a wise moral decision during the Cuban Missile Crisis, to look beyond the prevailing wisdom of most of his cabinet to bomb or invade Cuba and instead used backchannel negotiations to trade off missiles in Turkey, which were already slated for decommission. Perhaps it was Catholic moral teaching about the sanctity of life that guided President Kennedy to challenge the prevailing wisdom and craft a more elegant solution.

Perhaps it is providence now, Mr. Vice President, that we have in you, exactly 50 years later, the first Catholic vice president, in a position to privately persuade our current president of the wisdom of crafting a more elegant solution than the current HHS Mandate – one that serves the interests of all who depend upon and deserve healthcare without compromising religious-affiliated organizations which depend upon and deserve their freedom of conscience to operate without imposition of state values or financial penalties.

Jerry and Anna Parisella are parishioners of St. Mark, Sheepshead Bay, and St. Jean Baptiste, Manhattan.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (CNS) – A federal judge has dismissed Belmont Abbey College’s lawsuit against the Obama administration that had challenged the federal contraception mandate, but lawyers for the Benedictine college in Belmont say they will continue the fight.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia dismissed Belmont Abbey’s case, saying that the college did not have standing to bring the case to court, nor could it demonstrate it had been harmed yet by the contraception mandate.

The contraception mandate – issued in August 2011 by the federal Department of Health and Human Services as part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – requires nearly all employers to provide free artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs coverage in their insurance plans.

There is a narrow exemption for employers who object to providing these services on religious grounds, namely if they serve or hire people primarily of their own faith.

The contraceptive mandate takes effect for new health plans and those that undergo significant changes Aug. 1, 2012 – unless the narrow religious exemption applies or a one-year “temporary enforcement safe harbor” applies.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm representing Belmont Abbey College in the lawsuit, argued that paying for contraceptive services for employees and students would force the Catholic college and Benedictine monastic community to violate Church teaching against artificial contraception.

The firm argued that the mandate would mean an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and that Belmont Abbey College said it believed it would not be exempted from the mandate’s requirements.

WASHINGTON (CNS) – The chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities praised lawmakers for including two conscience provisions in the House version of the 2013 appropriations bill for the federal departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

“Our government has a long history of respecting rights of conscience in health care, and the time is long overdue to reaffirm this laudable tradition in the face of today’s growing threats,” said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo.

Cardinal DiNardo said the provision – called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which had 124 co-sponsors from both parties – “will reaffirm the basic principle that no health care entity should be forced by government to perform, participate in or pay for abortions.”

The other provision is the Respect for Right of Conscience Act, which Cardinal DiNardo said would “counter a policy that poses the most direct federal threat to religious freedom in recent memory,” a reference to the “HHS mandate” requiring most religious organizations to include sterilizations and contraceptive coverage – including those that could cause early abortions – in their health care plans.

Cardinal DiNardo said inclusion of the act “will provide urgently needed relief” by codifying the Hyde-Weldon amendment, which has been part of Labor-HHS appropriations packages since 2004, and will enhance “its enforceability” by closing loopholes and providing victims of discrimination with a “private right of action” to defend their rights in court.

Currently, Hyde-Weldon “can only be enforced by lodging a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, which in recent years has given a low priority to such claims and sometimes has itself been the perpetrator of discrimination,” Cardinal DiNardo said.