Key revision points ...

Seems like the bishops, schools, hospitals, Catholic Charities etc got everything they were seeking with the below. We'll have to wait for a reaction:

"The proposed rules would make two principal changes to the preventive services coverage rules to provide women contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, while taking into account religious objections to contraceptive services of eligible organizations, including eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education, that establish or maintain or arrange health coverage. First, the proposed rules would amend the criteria for the religious employer exemption to ensure that an otherwise exempt employer plan is not disqualified because the employer’s purposes extend beyond the inculcation of religious values or because the employer serves or hires people of different religious faiths. Second, the proposed rules would establish accommodations for health coverage established or maintained by eligible organizations, or arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

Advertisement

"...The Departments agree that the exemption should not exclude group health plans of religious entities that would qualify for the exemption but for the fact that, for example, they provide charitable social services to persons of different religious faiths or employ persons of different religious faiths when running a parochial school. Indeed, this was never the Departments’ intention in connection with the 2011 amended interim final rules or the 2012 final rules. Accordingly, in 45 CFR 147.131(a) (and the related rules of the Departments of Labor and the Treasury), the Departments propose to amend the definition of religious employer that was adopted in the 2012 final rules by eliminating the first three prongs of the definition and clarifying the application of the fourth. Under this proposal, an employer that is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code would be considered a religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption. For this purpose, an organization that is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity is not limited to  any particular form of entity under state law, but may include organizations such as trusts and unincorporated associations, as well as nonprofit, not-for-profit, non-stock, public benefit, and similar types of corporations. However, for this purpose, an organization is not considered to be organized and operated as a nonprofit entity if its assets or income accrue to the benefit of private individuals or shareholders. Under this standard, it is not necessary to determine the federal tax-exempt status of the nonprofit entity in determining whether the religious employer exemption applies. The Departments note that eliminating the first three prongs would avoid any inquiry into an employer’s purposes, as well as any inquiry into the religious beliefs of its employees and the religious beliefs of those it serves."

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Mister Heche
5 years 6 months ago
Actually, the Administration revisions have changed nothing of substance as argued in the two essays below: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339562/hhs-mandate-isn-t-fixed-grace-marie-turner AND http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290763/compromise-yuval-levin Here are other criticisms as well: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-leaders-slam-hhs-mandate-revisions-as-unacceptable

Advertisement

The latest from america

Medellín would be the first and perhaps one of the most successful exercises of appropriation of the Second Vatican Council at the continental level.
Hosffman OspinoAugust 21, 2018
In the patriarchal spaces of the music world as well as the church world, Aretha Franklin demanded respect for her talents and her work.
Anthea ButlerAugust 21, 2018
“There’s so many people looking,” said a girl in a backwards baseball cap, “but there’s no one to see.”
Brandon SanchezAugust 21, 2018
Using an abuse and accountability scandal to scapegoat Catholic queerness is not O.K.
Nathan SchneiderAugust 21, 2018