WSJ, WaPo weigh in on HHS decision

The Washington Post published an editorial on the recent HHS decision that would require Catholic affiliated non-church institutions to offer contraception coverage in employee health plans:

The best approach would have been for HHS to stick to its original conclusion that contraception coverage should generally be required but to expand the scope of its proposed exemption for religiously affiliated employers who claim covering contraception would violate their religious views. The administration’s feint at a compromise — giving such employers another year to figure out how to comply with the requirement — is unproductive can-kicking that fails to address the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.

Advertisement

Those who argued against the broader exception pointed to the fact that this move would deny free contraceptive coverage to hundreds of thousands of women who had no religious objection themselves but simply happened to be employed by a hospital, say, with a religious affiliation. They note that 28 states already require employers to include contraceptive coverage; of those, 10 have no exemption for religious institutions.

That is all true, yet the significance of the new health-care law is that the federal government will for the first time require all employers to provide insurance coverage for their workers — in other words, to spend their own money to help underwrite this coverage — or, in many cases, to pay a penalty. In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.

The Wall Street Journal explores the anger on the so-called Catholic left at the Obama administration for this decision:

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?

Catholic liberals appreciate that this HHS decision is more than a return to the hostility that sent so many Catholic Democrats fleeing to the Republican Party these past few decades. They understand that if left to stand, this ruling threatens the religious institutions closest to their hearts—those serving Americans in need, such as hospitals, soup kitchens and immigrant services.

Conservatives may enjoy the problems this creates for Mr. Obama this election year. Still, for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.

I suspect that this directive from the administration will have little effect on the (non-existent) Catholic vote come November, and I further believe that come 2013, when the law is set to go into effect, the newly re-elected Obama administration will broaden the exemption anyhow. This could simply be fuel to help fire up a somewhat apatehtic base in the months leading up to an election.

Michael J. O'Loughlin

 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Vince Killoran
5 years 10 months ago
Crystal writes, "I don't know what members of the "Catholic Left" the  WSJ is talking about.  The lefties I know are not angry at the Obama administration."

COMMONWEALTH and the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER both have pieces quite critical of the Obama Administration in their most recent issues.
Chris Sullivan
5 years 10 months ago
I think that the year's grace ought to give the Bishops time to reconsider their stand on this, which seems to me to be rather weak indeed, full of holes, and not well grounded in Catholic teaching.

If the Bishops can't manage to do that, at least the year will give them time to put in place some alternative insurance scheme.  Of course, that will likely cost the Bishops money, so then we'll see just whether or not the Bishops realise that actually compliing with the HHS mandate does not violate Catholic moral doctrine after all.

All around, a wise move from the Obama administration.  Full marks to them.

God Bless
Crystal Watson
5 years 10 months ago
I don't know what members of the "Catholic Left" the  WSJ is talking about.  The lefties I know are not angry at the Obama administration.  "President Obama Finally Does the Right Thing for Women" ..... http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2012/ObamaFinallyDoestheRightThingforWomen.asp
David Pasinski
5 years 10 months ago
I wouldn't call the Catholic vote non-existent, but divisions have multiplied whether it is because of the ham-handed way the hierarchy handled the new missal or continued and new developments in the sex abuse crisis, the bishops will be rallying a  war cry for ''religious freedom''- with an eye on the pocketbook as noted. It will be a good opportunity toarticulate this religious liberty issue and it may be surprising to see how claims start to get made. Could be awild Spring and summer! 
Amy Ho-Ohn
5 years 10 months ago
I will write to my Senators and House Representative and ask that they attempt to overrule the regulation legislatively. However, for me this is primarily an act of filial piety; I don't want the bishops to look impotent or to have to publicly climb down from their stance. Some reasonable accomodation can surely be found which will enable everybody to declare victory and move on.

But I am annoyed to have to expend influence on a fight which could so easily have been obviated. I have already written twice this year, once in favor of the DREAM Act and again to ask for help for priests imprisoned in Hanoi. If I write too often, I'll end up in the plonk file and that won't do anybody any good.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

“The Senate proposal is fundamentally flawed as written and requires amendment,” said Bishop Frank J. Dewane in a Nov. 22 letter to senators.
Pope Francis greets people at the “Regional Hub,” a government-run processing center for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, in Bologna, Italy, Oct. 1. (CNS photo/L’Osservatore Romano)
Although he named no countries, Vatican observers believe he is referring especially to political leaders in several western and eastern European countries.
Gerard O’ConnellNovember 24, 2017
For Thanksgiving, we give you an inside look into what Jesuit basketball teams to watch out for this season.
Olga SeguraNovember 24, 2017
Images: CNS/Composite: America
On Nov. 11, the Catholic Church lost a moral titan in the long struggle for racial equality and justice in the United States.
Shannen Dee WilliamsNovember 22, 2017