U.S. courts shut down Catholic employers’ campaign against contraceptives

 Source: LA Times

Author: Michael Hiltzak

Emphasis Mine

Ever since the federal government mandated that health insurance cover birth control under the Affordable Care Act without cost-sharing--that is, no co-pay charges or deductibles–Catholic employers have been trying to undercut the requirement.

Fortunately, they’ve been batting zero at the appeals court level, most recently before the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York, which last week knocked down an assertion by two Roman Catholic high schools and two Catholic healthcare systems that their religious rights are violated by even the requirement that they put their objections to contraception on the record so the government, their insurers, and their employees can make other arrangements.

The 2nd Circuit thus joins six other appeals courts in finding that the notice requirement doesn’t impose a burden on their religious exercise. No appeals court has ruled the other way. The 2nd Circuit ruled that “the only obligation actually imposed on plaintiffs is identifying themselves as religious objectors” through “a modicum of paperwork,” and that doesn’t come close to a burden on their religious observance. Since the plaintiffs in these lawsuits include many Catholic institutions operating in the secular world, including the University of Notre Dame and Wheaton Collegeit’s proper to examine how far they’ve been willing to go to try to impose their own religious views on thousands of employees and students who may not share them–even when the institutions are exempt from the mandate itself.

At issue in these cases is the “accommodation” the Obama administration provided to the religious employers objecting to the contraception mandate. According to the accommodation, religious employers that didn’t want to provide these services to employees via their health plans merely had to file a form with their insurers and the Department of Health and Human Services stating that they objected. That filing would make the insurers, not the employers, responsible for providing the contraceptives–in some cases with profitable funding from the federal government.

Yet some employers thought even that procedure made them complicit with a sin. So the government offered a further accommodation: they merely had to send a letter identifying themselves as objectors. That still wasn’t enough. Sending the letter, Notre Dame asserted, still made it a “conduit” between the health plans it contracted with and its employees and students. The law forced it to “contract with a third party willing to provide the very services Notre Dame deems objectionable.”
The judges in these cases take the sincerity of the plaintiffs as, well, gospel. But as Appellate Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit observed in May, their lawsuits aim to extend the reach of their religious objections awfully far–imposing them on private corporations (Aetna and its other insurers) and even on the federal government. No dice, Posner ruled in the Notre Dame case; the accommodation actually serves to “lift a burden from the university’s shoulders.”

His words were echoed last week by the three-judge appellate panel in New York, which found that the burden on the high schools and other plaintiffs was “merely one of notification, equivalent to the burden historically placed on draft registrants to indicate their conscientious objections to military service.” Once they opt out, the law doesn’t require them to play any role whatsoever in providing birth control to their female employees.

From the inception of the Affordable Care Act, the government has leaned over backward to meet the objections of Catholic employers. First it offered its accommodation to religious entities such as churches, then extended it to secular employers with religious affiliations, like Notre Dame. When some of these objected to submitting a government form attesting to their objections to the mandate, they were permitted to just send a letter. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, extended the rights of religious-affiliated employers to private companies owned by people claiming religious scruples.

The plaintiffs have moved from asserting their own right to not provide contraceptive services to asserting their right to prevent any entity with which they have even a tenuous business relationship from providing these services to their employees, and then to preventing the U.S. government from doing so in their stead. What’s next? Asserting that employees who cash their paychecks shouldn’t be allowed to buy contraceptives with their money?

The courts are right to call a halt to this trend. But the battle isn’t over; although so far every circuit is in accord, nothing stops the Supreme Court from deciding to weigh in. Then all bets will be off, once again.

Keep up to date with the Economy Hub. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see our Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

 

See: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-catholic-campaign-against-contraception-20150811-column.html

Obama Budget Proposal Would End Abstinence-Only Grants

Source: nationalpartnerships

Author:

President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 would end grants to states for abstinence-only sex education programs, U.S. News & World Report reports. Specifically, the budget blueprint, released on Tuesday, would eliminate $50 million in annual funding designated for abstinence-only education grants under the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148). It also would end the Competitive Abstinence Education program, which receives $5 million in annual funding.

According to U.S. News & World Report, Obama does not support abstinence-only sex education programs, despite funding them in previous budgets (Nelson, U.S. News & World Report, 3/5). He cut funding for the programs, a “hallmark” of the George W. Bush administration, in his 2010 budget, but Congress has restored the funding, including in its latest budget deal, CNN reports (Liberto, CNN, 3/5).

Reaction

Supporters of comprehensive sex education programs praised the budget proposal (U.S. News & World Report, 3/5). According to a 2007 federal study that tracked 2,000 adolescents over 10 years, abstinence-only programs do not prevent them from having sex.

Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said, “Taxpayers want to know: Is my money going to something that’s making a difference,” adding, “In the grand scheme of things, $5 million doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but on the other hand, abstinence-only is not a program based on science.”

More than $175 million annually goes toward other types of sex education programs, according to CNN (CNN, 3/5).

Meanwhile, supporters of abstinence-only sex education programs said they do not believe Congress will go along with Obama’s proposal. National Abstinence Education Association President Valerie Huber said she is “very optimistic” that abstinence-only programs will continue to receive funding, citing past instances when Congress “chose to ignore” Obama’s budget requests (U.S. News & World Report, 3/5).

Emphasis Mine

See: http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=43811&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1