Laws - Obamacare
Freedom2Care blogs on health care.
Statements on Pres. Obama's Feb. 10, 2012 contraception coercion decision
Christian Medical Assn. / Freedom2Care: CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens asserted, "The President's so-called 'religious accommodation' today shows that he either has no comprehension of what conscience convictions mean or that he cynically chooses to disregard conscience and play a political game. We learned from his executive order on abortion in health care reform that verbal engineering cannot cover up a contempt for conscience.
"Those of us who have a conscientious conviction that contraceptive pills that can end the life of a developing human being are morally impermissible not only deplore paying for them directly; we also deplore the government forcing insurance companies or anyone else to pay for them.
U.S. Conf. Catholic Bishops: "Today, the President has done two things. First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. We note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders-for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals-is unacceptable and must be corrected. We note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services." Full statement...
National Right to Life Committee: "President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The same twisted logic will be applied: By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby -- and under the Obama scam, if a procedure saves money, then that means that you're not really paying for it when the government mandates it."
U.S. Senator Roy Blunt: "It's still clear that President Obama does not understand this isn't about cost - it's about who controls the religious views of faith-based institutions. President Obama believes that he should have that control. Our Constitution states otherwise. Just because you can come up with an accounting gimmick and pretend like religious institutions do not have to pay for the mandate, does not mean that you've satisfied the fundamental constitutional freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed."
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA): "What sets our nation apart is that religious freedom is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment, not simply a privilege to be given and taken away on a government whim," said Upton. "We do not and cannot begin to compromise on this fundamental right. Today's announcement is not a compromise on policy - it simply pretends to shift costs away from religious employers, but it doesn't fix the problem and is another call for individuals and institutions to compromise on principle.
Pitts said, "This is a fig leaf and a disingenuous gimmick. The President needs to take off his green eye shade and read the First Amendment. This outrage is one more reason why the President's healthcare law needs to be repealed. The very idea that the President now has the power to force America's largest Christian denomination to violate long-held church doctrine is antithetical to everything America stands for. This is supposed to be a free country."
U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch: "This is about religious freedom, and anything short of a full exemption is no compromise. The White House has shown time and time again that nothing will stand in the way of politics, and their actions on this mandate reflect that. The backlash surrounding the White House's decision to force religious institutions to act against their beliefs lays that fundamental fact that the President's health law is unconstitutional to its very core."
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan: "This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It's a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs. This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law."
Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-04): "The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else. It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naïve or gullible would accept this as a change in policy. The newest iteration of Obama's coercion rule utterly fails because it still forces religious employers and employees who have moral objections to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception to pay for these things, because it is still the employers who buy the coverage for their employees. The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction. It states, for example, that religious employers "will not" have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their "insurance companies" will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins: "This revised HHS mandate does nothing to change the fundamentally anti-religious, anti-conscience and anti-life contraceptive mandate. It rather only creates some paperwork gimmicks that don't change the fact that religious employers who object to coverage of these services will now have to drop health insurance altogether to maintain their conscience and face severe penalties for doing so. This new proposal still requires religious entities that are not exempt as a church to subsidize and pay insurance companies so they can give free birth control to their employees. However, it won't be free, because the insurance companies will increase the premium and administrative costs to the employer. This new gimmick forces religious entities to violate their religious beliefs and continues to show a complete disdain for the First Amendment. There is no compromise if a single American citizen is required to violate his or her conscience."
C-FAM: "President Obama is calling contraception 'preventative health care for women' like they do in Europe, as if pregnancy and children are a disease. But Americans are still choosing to have enough children to replace themselves, and so long as that continues the US will avoid Europe's brutal demographic decline, says Susan Yoshihara, Vice President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). "Why do American women have more children on average than any developed country in the world? Not because they don't have contraception. The government spends over $2 billion a year for family planning. Demographers say it's only partly about immigration, and a lot about values: optimism, a frontier spirit, and religious ideals. In short, Americans have children because they love children. And they know that children don't just 'take,' they grow up to create, produce, and to defend us."
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty - "The Obama Administration announced changes to the government rule that requires all employers to pay, without co-pay, abortion-causing drugs, all contraceptives and sterilizations. But do not be fooled by this announcement. President Obama only wants to quell the political firestorm, without addressing the fundamental right of conscience. He's treating conscience not as an inalienable right, but as a political football to be kicked around in an election year."
Academic leaders including Princeton's Dr. Robert George and 117 others - "This so-called "accommodation" changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration's insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services." read full letter
Care Net: President Melinda Delahoyde said, "As the President of a non-profit Christian organization, I am deeply disturbed that the president appears to be playing a cynical political game with the religious liberties of faith-based organizations. According to his most recent statement, religious employers would still be paying for health insurance for their employees, and the insurance companies would be required to include contraceptive coverage. Shifting the mandate to insurance companies rather than employers represents a political sleight of hand that changes nothing and continues to infringe on the freedom of conscience of faith-based employers. The President needs to know that objections to the contraceptive coverage mandate are not about money, but about abridging the fundamental religious liberty of faith-based institutions by entangling them in practices which violate their convictions."
Catholic Medical Association: President Obama announced a "new compromise" to his rule that all employers, including Catholic institutions, must pay for abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization benefits. Unfortunately, his solution merely shifts the coercion from religious employers to insurance companies and to the people who pay premiums. While the CMA will study the details of the new policy as they become available, it appears to fall far short of addressing the fatal flaws in the original rule. The Catholic Medical Association encourages people to support, and Congress to pass, legislation that fully protects the conscience rights and religious freedom of individuals, religions, and institutions (such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, H.R. 1179 and S. 1467).
The Cardinal Newman Society: "It is quickly becoming clear that President Obama's revised mandate for insurance coverage of abortifacients, sterilization and contraception amounts to nothing more than political theater. The mandate remains. And so our fight continues. Under terms of the revised mandate, students at Catholic colleges and universities will still be provided free abortion-causing drugs, sterilization and contraception. And Catholic colleges and universities will still be compelled under the force of law to pay for such coverage for their students and employees if they offer a health plan. There can be no compromise that does not eliminate the mandate."
Americans United for Life - President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest: "It is clear that Americans need Congress to step in to protect their rights of conscience under the law and to end their forced participation in President Obama's abortion-inducing drug mandate. The preventive healthcare guidelines include ella, a drug that ends unborn life. This is not necessary health care for women. And it is incredibly naive to believe that this will not cost either women or their employers. Insurance companies will surely take the projected expenses of these efforts into account when pricing coverage."
Concerned Women for America: Requiring employers affiliated with the Christian faith, like Concerned Women for America, to include free abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans is contrary to both Christian doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. When religious groups are forced to deny their deeply held religious convictions, it is not called "balance"; it is called "tyranny." Every American will be forced to undermine their moral and religious principles and subsidize what they believe to be morally repugnant. As much as President Obama would like us to believe this is a "women's right's issue," this is really a religious freedom issue. President Obama has abused his executive power and overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.
Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC) - Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission: "Southern Baptists and people of other various faith communities are outraged with President Obama's so-called compromise on his administration's abortion mandate. In his attempt to mollify his radical pro-abortion supporters, President Obama has declared that individual conscience is subject to government edict. The president's failure to grasp the seriousness of this issue reveals a dangerous presidential blind spot concerning First Amendment constitutional religious free exercise guarantees."
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance - "The administration's contraceptives mandate is only one of the many and growing threats to the religious freedom of faith-based service organizations. If this mandate stands, faith-based colleges and universities will have to include the morally controversial drugs in the health insurance offered not only to their faculty and staff but also to their students. Unfortunately, all too often these days government and powerful activist groups regard the distinctive ways faith-based organizations serve their neighbors to be merely instances of discrimination, hate, and bigotry."
|
House: |
Senate: Republican Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
|
House hearing on Obama administration contraceptives mandate
On November 2, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the topic, "Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and Access to Care?
View the hearing (panelists begin around 23:00)
Opening Statement of Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts
Witnesses
- William J. Cox - President and CEO, Alliance of Catholic Health Care Witness Testimony
- David Stevens, MD, MA - CEO, Christian Medical Association Witness Testimony
- Jane G. Belford - Chancellor, Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. Witness Testimony
- Jon O’Brien - President, Catholics for Choice Witness Testimony
- Mark Hathaway, MD, MPH - Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology Outreach Services for Women’s and Infants’ Services, Washington Hospital Center Witness Testimony
Pro-life organizations critique federal contraception mandate
AAPLOG - preventive services statement
Alliance Defense Fund et al - preventive services comment
Alliance of Catholic Health Care - preventive services comment
American College of Pediatricians - preventive services comment
Americans United for Life - preventive services comment
Beckett Fund - preventive services comment
Catholic Charities - preventive services comment
Catholic Medical Association - preventive services comment
Christian Medical Association - preventive services comment
Collegium Aesculapium - preventive services comment
Congress - Fortenberry et al - preventive services comment
Family Research Council - preventive services comment
National Catholic Bioethics Center - preventive services comment
U.S. Conference Catholic Bishops - preventive services comment
U.S. senators - preventive services letter
Download summary of HealthcareLawConscienceGaps (.pdf )
Family Research Council: Contraception mandate threatens conscience
FRC strongly believes that the federal government should not impose any mandate on
individual and group health plans to cover contraceptives. Including contraceptives as preventive
care under Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act will guarantee that the conscience rights of
many people will be violated by a federal mandate for coverage. Read full article...
Washington Post guest commentary: Where's the religious freedom in birth control mandate?
Respect for freedom of conscience and religious liberty has a long history. Thomas Jefferson, who was not especially religious himself, said it best in 1809, when he declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.” That position is under threat as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prepares to list “preventive services for women” that must be included in most private health plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Healthcare Reform Act. HHS called on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to list such services that should be mandated in private health plans (PPACA). IOM said July 20 that everybody’s health plan should cover contraception, sterilization and patient education and counseling promoting these for all women with reproductive capacity. IOM offers no talk of religious exemption for those with moral or religious objections to some of these practices, including those that effectively abort tiny children. Read full commentary...
Catholic Med. Assn. Criticizes IOM Recommendation on Mandating Contraceptive Coverage
Mandating insurance coverage of contraceptives is not only a failed strategy, as noted above, it is also unfair and unethical public policy. Such a mandate will force people to subsidize specific interest groups and businesses, including Planned Parenthood, who would benefit from having contraceptive coverage mandated; it will force people to subsidize contraceptives and the behaviors they enable even if they have ethical objections, including providers who object to dispensing contraceptive services based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. This will be true not only for individuals forced to pay extra for health-insurance premiums, but also for institutions forced to violate their ethical convictions. Read full news release...
CMA endorses bipartisan Smith-Lapinski bill to block taxpayer funding of abortions
The Christian Medical Association, a professional organization of 17,000 members, enthusiastically endorses the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" to establish a consistent government-wide prohibition on abortion funding. We applaud the leadership of Reps. Chris Smith and Dan Lipinski and others in introducing this vitally important legislation. The fact that this bill will codify the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause is tremendously important to our membership and to the patients they serve. CMA letter - No Taxpayer Funding Abortion bill
Heritage Foundation: Obamacare and the Ethics of Life: Weakening Medical Conscience and the Protection of Life
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) contains several provisions that weaken longstanding federal policy denying public subsidies for elective abortion and health care plans that provide coverage of elective abortion. In addition, PPACA fails to adequately protect the conscience rights of health care insurers, providers, and personnel who decline to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. These defects in PPACA not only fail to fix the patchwork of laws that have been passed to bar federal support for elective abortion; they also create new avenues for federal subsidies and promotion of elective abortion. Read full article...
Patients imperiled by conscience protection gaps in new healthcare law
Where does the new healthcare overhaul law leave healthcare professionals regarding the exercise of their conscience rights? How might it impact the poor patients now served by faith-based professionals and institutions? Read more...
Washington Post: "New health-care law raises concerns about respecting providers' consciences"
Deep within the massive health-care overhaul legislation, a few little-noticed provisions have quietly reignited one of the bitterest debates in medicine: how to balance the right of doctors, nurses and other workers to refuse to provide services on moral or religious grounds with the right of patients to get care.
"At the end of the day regarding the legislation, a pro-life health-care professional is left with a weak and limited conscience provision that doesn't even prohibit discrimination by governments and institutions," said Jonathan Imbody, vice president for government relations at the Christian Medical Association. Read full article
by physicians on healthcare legislation and conscience
Need practical help in expressing your views to your legislators?
To arm yourself with the latest updates and tips, check out the free, practical and thoughtful healthcare legislation resources offered by these conscience-supporting organizations:
- Freedom2Care - Twitter, Facebook
- Christian Medical Association - Webcast
- National Right to Life Committee - Action
- Family Research Council - Updates
- Stop the Abortion Mandate - Video
- Americans United for Life - Chart
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - Updates
CMA commentary in Washington Examiner: No such thing as free operation
March 19, 2010 - Byron York challenges the cherry-picking use of positive healthcare poll responses to questions regarding requiring coverage by businesses, by all Americans and for preexisting conditions.
Besides negative public perceptions of the legislation in its entirety, even the positive poll responses are misleading, since the questions only pose a partial reality. Read full commentary
CMA Op-Ed in The Church Report: Healthcare Insanity: Do Dead People Bleed?
March 12, 2010 - Did you hear about the psychiatric patient who kept insisting in the face of all the obvious evidence to the contrary that he was dead?
Finally, a clever psychiatrist challenged the patient, "Well, do dead people bleed?"
The patient thought for a moment... Read full Op-Ed
CMA commentary in Washington Examiner: Pearl Harbor healthcare attack and sleeping giants
Feb. 14, 2010 - Mark Tapscott's editorial reveals on the political radar screen a "Pearl Harbor" healthcare overhaul strategy ("Pelosi aide says Democratic congressional leaders have settled on legislative 'trick' to pass Obamacare," Wednesday). President Obama convenes healthcare peace talks with Republicans while Congressional Democrats deploy the "reconciliation" maneuver to neutralize GOP opposition, pass the radical Senate bill and sink any hopes of bipartisan reform. READ full Op-Ed
CMA Op-Ed in Church Report: Mired in healthcare muck, the President suddenly pleads for help
"And I want to be very specific," Mr. Obama earnestly continues in the CBS interview, apparently on the verge of revealing the cryptic healthcare conundrums that have stymied him and his staff up until now.
"How do you guys want to lower costs?"
Oh.
That might have been a good question for the President and his party to start with a year ago, before crafting a radical and now-rejected plan to have their government take over our health care. READ full Op-Ed
