Suitable concerns?

In a recent e-mail, Notre Dame Law Professor and Mirror of Justice blogger Rick Garnett made some points about the university’s recent lawsuit against the H.H.S. mandate. In a post yesterday I referred to Grant Gallicho’s analysis at DotCommonweal about the scope of the religious exemption already offered. Grant believes it is more generous than most of the administration’s critics realize.

Garnett is not as confident that Catholic elementary schools and social welfare agencies are, as Grant argues, shoe-ins for a religious exemption from the mandate and argues that it is not clear that the relevant language would treat even a diocese as a religious employer.

Advertisement

He writes: “I think it is entirely reasonable for these plaintiffs to read the relevant text and conclude that they cannot be confident that they would be covered," points spelled out in greater detail in the briefs filed on May 21.

In any event, Garnett argues that the exemption remains “simply too narrow” and despite non-binding assurances in H.H.S. documents, he worries that its language could spread throughout the federal “regulatory regime in a way damaging to religious freedom." He adds, “The way regulations are written involves a whole lot of cribbing and borrowing, and there’s no reason to have any confidence that a future regulator, in a different context, won’t decide that the narrow exception would work well in her bailiwick, too."

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
John Hayes
6 years 4 months ago
"Garnett...argues that it is not clear that he relevant language would treat even a diocese as a religious employer"

The "four-pronged" definition of a "religious employer" who is exempt from providing contraception coverage is taken word-for-word from a California law passed in 1999 and a New Yrk law passed later.  It was not invented by HHS. 

Does Professor Garnett know of any diocese in California or New York that has been denied exempt status in the past 13 years?  Or any church?

Rick Fueyo
6 years 4 months ago
It has little to do with trust, except in the broadest sense. The accommodation should be sufficient except for the self-insurance question, which is concededly a different issue. To that end, the Administration has already offered various other accommodations such that the employer, which is the Catholic institution, is separated from the provision of the coverage. One is free to debate as to the reasonableness of the separations. And it's not a matter of trust, those are all in writing.
 
But two things are abundantly clear. First, the Administration has offered various potential solutions to try to address what is the stated concern, for Church related institutions to have to directly pay or otherwise facilitate contraception coverage. Second, this doesn't seem to be the actual endgame for the Bishops.  Though they expressed their concern in terms of religious liberty and not having to pay for services they find morally objectionable, they don't seem interested in any way to actually separate out that provision. In the "Taco Bell" exception, they've indicated they want the mandate for contraception coverage per se removed, so that no employer, religious or otherwise, ever has to provide it.   
 
Finally, I will confess I do trust the current Administration, or any future administration of any party within the conceivable political zeitgeist, to not send shock troops in arresting Bishops and martyring them. That's just not going to happen, and concerns that being compelled to work through a third-party administrator or some other legal separation mechanism such that the employees of Catholic institution have contraceptive coverage, while separating out any direct link of behalf of the Church related employer, will invariably lead to martyring of the faithful in an attack on the Church in general, is just a bizarre chain of stacked inferences

Advertisement

The latest from america

"I feel proud as a brother and as a family member," Gaspar Romero said, "but also as part of the (Salvadoran) people because over there, they love him a lot."
Pope Francis made clear that Paul VI and Archbishop Romero responded to the radical call of Jesus with “an undivided heart.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 14, 2018
Just before the announcement was made, the pope met with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera and discussed the sexual abuse scandal affecting the Catholic Church in the country.
Damien Chazelle’s "First Man" is a remarkably idiosyncratic movie, given the usual heroic/fantastic presentation on screen of space travel—or anything involving the heavens.
John AndersonOctober 12, 2018