Catholic hospitals accept birth control compromise

By Rachel Zoll, AP Religion Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a split with U.S. bishops, a trade group for Catholic hospitals said Tuesday it can accept the Obama's administration latest compromise on birth control coverage by religious employers.

"We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage," said the Catholic Health Association.

Under President Barack Obama's health care law, most employers are required to cover birth control as a free preventive service for women workers. Churches and other houses of worship are fully exempt from the mandate. But religiously-affiliated hospitals, universities and social service groups are not.

The compromise, in a final regulation from the administration, attempts to create a buffer for these employers. It requires insurers or the health plan's outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage, and creates a mechanism for reimbursing them.

However, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are suing to overturn the entire requirement, saying it trespasses on freedom of religion.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, said the hospital association had notified the bishops' conference about its stand late Monday.

Walsh said the bishops "did not contribute to the (group's) analysis or the statement itself." Catholic dioceses, charities and universities are among the plaintiffs in more than 60 lawsuits challenging the rule. The cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.

The regulation has become another contentious issue in the health care overhaul Obama signed into law in 2010.

The Catholic hospitals' group, led by Sister Carol Keehan, joined other prominent Catholics in defying the bishops to support passage of the health law at a critical stage of the congressional debate.

More recently, the group had joined the bishops and leaders of other faiths in pressing the Department of Health and Human Services for a broader religious exemption from birth control coverage.

The birth control coverage requirement was widely praised by women's groups, and supported by medical societies as good for both mothers and children.

The administration's original birth control rule, introduced early last year, exempted churches and other houses of worship. However, faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits were required to comply.

After a public outcry, the Obama administration floated a series of compromises that resulted in a final accommodation June 28.

The latest version of the regulation attempts to create a buffer between the faith-affiliated charities and contraceptive coverage by requiring insurers or another third-party to provide contraceptive coverage instead of the religious employer.

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said in a statement last week that the bishops were still studying the regulation, adding that it does not appear to address all their concerns about religious freedom. The bishops have also sought a religious exemption for owners of for-profit businesses.

The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents Protestant churches across the country, announced Monday it also rejects the compromise.

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception. Evangelicals generally accept the use of birth control, but some object to specific methods such as the morning-after contraceptive pill, which they argue is tantamount to abortion, and is covered under the policy.

The hospital trade group's decision was first reported by the National Catholic Reporter.

Link:

• Catholic hospitals accept birth control compromise

Cardinal Burke: Yes, it’s a sin to comply with the Obamacare mandate

AP Photo

By Tina Korbe

(Hot Air) In the clearest statement of what’s at stake for Catholic employers when it comes to the Obamacare contraception mandate, a leading Catholic cardinal recently said that it is, in fact, a sin for employers to comply with the mandate.

Cardinal Raymond Burke told EWTN’s Thomas McKenna that Catholic employers would not only be guilty of material cooperation with sin, but also formal cooperation because they would knowingly and deliberately be providing employees with contraception:

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin … the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

Responding to the comments, [former executive director of HLI America Jenn] Giroux says, “This comment by a high ranking Cardinal is the clearest explanation to date on the issue of an employer’s culpability when providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drug options in the insurance plans for employees.”

It’s easy to see that this statement might come as a surprise even to the most faithful of Catholics, who are taught that an individual must freely consent to sin to bear full responsibility for it. Under the mandate, do employers really have the freedom not to consent? Cardinal Burke is telling them that, yes, they do. They have the freedom, for example, to get out of whatever business it is they’re running. They have the freedom to not have employees. They have the freedom to ignore the mandate and suffer the legal consequences. Burke’s comments are a hard call to faithfulness to all those Catholic employers who have been outraged by the mandate but might have been tempted to justify their ultimate compliance with it with that perennial of excuses: “I had no choice.” The seriousness of Burke’s words are also a warning to the Obama administration: He is saying that Catholic employers should go out of business before they comply with the mandate. Just as opponents have said from the very beginning, the mandate does, in fact, endanger the very existence of Catholic hospitals, schools and other charitable organizations. The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

• Catholic Cardinal: Yes, it’s a sin to comply with the Obamacare mandate
• Catholic Cardinal: A Sin to Cooperate With Obama Mandate

Related:

• Moving Beyond
• Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke
• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’

What Did Sister Carol Keehan Know and When Did She Know It?

From Joan Frawley Desmond at the National Catholic Register:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Feb. 10 confirmed that his administration was offering an “accommodation” to religious groups opposed to a controversial federal rule requiring private health plans to provide contraception and abortion services.

As reported in the media, church-affiliated employers would not have to directly cover those services; instead, their insurance plans would cover them.

The announcement prompted an expression of gratitude from Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, and a polite, but wary response from the U.S...

Subsequent media coverage and interviews suggest that while the White House cleared its talking points with Sister Carol in advance of the president’s public address, the USCCB had been excluded from the administration’s deliberations.

“Obama has made clear who is part of his ideological coalition and who is not. Discussions on the structure and restructuring of the contraceptive policy were conducted between the administration and pro-choice and feminist groups. The institutions targeted by the mandate — particularly those represented by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — were not in the room,” stated Michael Gerson in a column published in The Washington Post today.

“The administration engaged in no substantive consultation with Catholic bishops, who were only called to receive pronouncements. Interest-group liberalism is alive and well in the Obama White House,” Gerson wrote...

However, media reports suggest that Sister Carol received special treatment from the White House. A Feb. 10 New York Times story reported that the president’s “accommodation” was designed specifically to address Sister Carol’s concerns, not those of the U.S. bishops.

“The fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health-care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left,” reported the Times.

Richard Doerflinger, the U.S. bishops’ chief lobbyist on life issues, confirmed that the conference had not received the relevant documents regarding the reported “accommodation” until Friday evening and that more information arrived on “Saturday, Feb. 11, at 5:27pm.”

After the close of the Friday workday, said Doerflinger, the conference was finally able to sift through all the documents — only to conclude that nothing of substance had changed since the HHS final rule was approved last month...

In striking contrast to the USCCB’s conclusion,  Sister Carol greeted the president’s “accommodation” with enthusiasm. Her support was touted by the administration and cited in media coverage of the breaking story.
By Feb. 11, the White House blog had posted statements from Sister Carol, Catholic Charities USA and Planned Parenthood supporting Obama’s “accommodation.” However, the Catholic Charities USA statement, a modified version of that organization’s original and more enthusiastic response to the president’s move, could not be described as an endorsement.

Sister Carol, however, has not modified her response to the president’s overture. From the beginning, her endorsement asserted that religious-liberty concerns had been addressed.

But she did not specify how the president’s action had met the concerns of church-affiliated institutions, including the members of her association.

Did Sister Carol receive additional binding assurances or was she simply trusting the president to make good on his promise to a faithful ally?

A review of the CHA website suggests that its CEO and president does not, in fact, have all the facts. A new statement assures anxious members that the organization “will review the proposed new rules for the HHS mandate.”

“CHA looks forward to reviewing the specifics of the changes in the mandated benefits. Many members have called with questions about these since they were a concern as first published. On Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, we were notified that our organizations would not have to buy or refer employees for contraception and other services. We were also told that the self-insured plans would be accommodated in this. At this time, there are many unanswered questions about specifics. We now have the challenging work of reviewing the proposed rules, examining their impact and giving input before they are finalized.

“Because many members have asked about specifics in the rules and also the process for applying for the one-year exception, we have included links to the rules and to the guidance on the safe harbor with this email.”

“As more is known about this, we will be getting that information out to the membership as quickly as possible,” read the new statement.

But if the CHA has not established the specifics of the “accommodation,” why did Sister Carol endorse it?

Sister Carol did not respond to a request for clarification. Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth, Texas, the episcopal liaison on the CHA board, referred requests for comment to the CHA.

It is still not clear whether the board approved Sister Carol’s statement on Feb. 10, as Sister Carol and Bishop Vann did not respond to questions regarding this point. (continued)

Read More

h/t Fr. Z

Link:

• What Did CHA's Carol Keehan Know and When Did She Know It?

Related Links:

• Cardinal-designate Dolan "disappointed" that Sister Keehan "acted unilaterally, not in concert with the bishops"
• Bishop Morlino: ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is beginning of persecution
• Obama Pretends He Doesn't Know The Difference Between The Pope and the Dopes

Magisterium of Nuns

Obama Pretends He Doesn't Know The Difference Between The Pope and the Dopes

From Carol at The Tenth Crusade:

I can't believe this...but Maria was right.

Obama is pretending Carol Keehan's disobedience to religious law is equivocal to the authority of the Pope.

"I can't speak to differences within the Catholic Church,"

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on Fox News Sunday when reminded that "the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country" was a denunciation of Obama's att empt at accomodation. "I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association which knows a fair amount about what it requires to [provide] health care in this country," he added.

They don't know what the differences are within the Catholic Church and can't speak to them.

In their ignorance they knew exactly how to avoid getting the official answers on Catholic ethics and religious liberty. What a coincidence.

Wow. They're either really stupid or pathological liars.

Maybe they're both?

• Link