In my last few columns I wrote about why religious freedom is important from a Catholic and an American perspective. As North Dakotans prepare to go to the polls, we need to put those principles into practice with Measure 3.

As Catholics we believe that every person has a God-given right to religious freedom. Because the right to religious freedom is essential to what it means to be human, it must be respected in the law as a fundamental right.

Contrary to what many believe, neither the U.S. nor the North Dakota constitutions protect religious liberty as a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are those that warrant highest level of protection under the law. If a right is fundamental, government cannot burden it unless it has a compelling interest and does so by the least restrictive means.

Prior to 1990, the Supreme Court treated religious freedom as a fundamental right. All laws – federal, state, and local – had to respect religious freedom. This made sense. After all, our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom.

In 1990, this all changed. For reasons still not clear to many legal scholars, the Supreme Court decided that religious freedom was not a fundamental right. Government, including the North Dakota government, could infringe upon religious freedom even if it did not have a compelling interest and even if other ways existed to achieve the law’s purpose.

It was left to Congress and the states to restore religious freedom to a fundamental right. The federal government and many states have done that, but North Dakota has not had that opportunity until now. At stake with Measure 3 is whether North Dakota will recognize religious freedom as a fundamental right.

Opponents of religious freedom will make outrageous statements about Measure 3, claiming that it will allow spousal abuse, child marriages, and clinic bombings. Those claims are baseless. Measure 3 preserves the government’s ability to enforce important laws.

Some opponents claim that the measure is not needed. What they are really saying is that religious freedom should not be treated as a fundamental right. So long as the law does not protect religious freedom as a fundamental right, the measure is needed.

Like the United States, North Dakota has its own history with religious freedom. Our first citizens, the American Indians, for too long had their religious rights trampled. Our Germans from Russia ancestors came here, in part, because their religious rights were no longer respected by the Russian authorities. North Dakota itself has at times passed anti-Catholic laws, such as the anti-clerical garb law that stayed on the books until 2001.

Yet it is with eyes to the future and not just the past that we should support Measure 3. Measure 3 restores the protections that existed before 1990, but it also preserves and passes to future generations the gift of religious freedom. Some North Dakotans may not feel that their religious freedoms are threatened right now, but for the sake of their children and grandchildren, they should vote “yes” on Measure 3 and ensure that future North Dakotans have the freedom to believe and act according to their religious beliefs.

Christopher Dodson
Executive Director, North Dakota Catholic Conference
May 2012

Future ‘accommodation’ excludes many, cannot meet incompatible goals

Urges re-opening final rule defining contraceptive mandate, religious exemption

Outstanding issues should be resolved ‘in favor of more, not less, religious freedom’

WASHINGTON—Religious employers and other stakeholders would still have their employee health insurance plans and premiums used for services they find morally objectionable, even under future government accommodations, according to comments submitted by the General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The May 15 comments outlined the continued objections of USCCB to the HHS “preventive services” mandate and urged the administration to resolve these issues “in favor of more, not less, religious freedom.”

“We believe that this mandate is unjust and unlawful – it is bad health policy, and because it entails an element of government coercion against conscience, it creates a religious freedom problem,” wrote Anthony Picarello, USCCB associate general secretary and general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel. “These moral and legal problems are compounded by an extremely narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed ‘religious enough’ for an exemption, and those that are not.”

The comments were submitted in response to an HHS Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on preventive services, which expressed the administration’s intention to propose additional regulations in order to establish alternative ways of ensuring contraceptive coverage for employees enrolled in health plans of religious organizations not exempted from the HHS mandate while still “accommodating” such organizations.

The USCCB comments noted that such an accommodation would only apply to some religious organizations and that it “would still leave their premiums or plans (or both) as the source or conduit for the objectionable ‘services.’ But the use of premiums and plans for that purpose is precisely what is morally objectionable, and having an insurer or third party administer the payments does not overcome the moral objection.” The comments concluded that, “under the terms set out in the ANPRM, the ‘accommodation’ cannot provide effective relief even for those few stakeholders that qualify for it.”

The comments outlined six points:

First, the ANPRM does not change the fact that contraceptive services are included in the list of mandated preventive services. This has remained unchanged from an earlier regulation announced in August 2011.

Second, the ANPRM does not change the administration’s criteria for defining “religious employers” exempted from the mandate, an exemption that USCCB calls “unprecedented in federal law, improperly narrow, and unlawful.” These criteria include that employers primarily hire and serve only members of their own religion.

Third, many stakeholders in the health insurance process—religious and secular insurers, religious and secular for-profit employers, individual policy-holders, and others—with a conscientious objection to the mandate are completely ineligible for the exemption. The ANPRM does not acknowledge or address this problem, and as a result, those stakeholders “will be required in the next few months either to drop out of the health insurance marketplace, potentially triggering crippling penalties, or to provide coverage that violates their deeply-held convictions.”

Fourth, while the administration has invited public comment on some further “accommodation” for certain non-exempt religious organizations, secular stakeholders will receive no such accommodation. “We believe that the contraceptive mandate violates the religious and conscience rights of these stakeholders as well and is unlawful.”

Fifth, regardless of the definition of “religious organization,” the central problem remains, that “conscientiously-objecting non-exempt religious organizations will still be required to provide plans that serve as a conduit for contraceptives and sterilization procedures to their own employees, and their premiums will help pay for those items.” The administration has invited comment on different approaches for how to deal with a self-insured employer, but “none of them will solve the problems that the mandate creates for non-exempt religious organizations with a conscientious objection to contraceptive coverage.”

Sixth, the ANPRM raises new questions such as whether employers must be independently exempt for their employees to participate in an exempt plan, whether religious objection to some, but not all, contraceptives should be accommodated and whether a past practice of mistakenly or unknowingly covering contraceptives should disqualify one from accommodation.

“In each case, we urge resolution of these questions in favor of more, not less, religious freedom,” Picarello and Moses wrote.

The full text of the comments is available online: www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf

In a letter published in the Grand Forks Herald on May 13, representatives of the North Dakota Women’s Network decried the fact that Measure 3 would allow a Catholic school to terminate a teacher who openly violated the church’s teaching and the terms of her employment.  It other words, they want to dictate to a religious school whom it can hire and fire.

Now we know that true reason behind the scare tactics employed by Measure 3’s opponents.  They want the right to force a church to accept their political agenda, even if it violates the church’s beliefs. As if to drive the point further, in another paper on the same day, an opponent of Measure Three wrote: “People have religious freedom, churches do not.”

Measure Three’s opponents have been wrong about most every claim they have made about the measure.  They are right, however, about one thing: Measure 3 protects a church’s right to govern its own affairs.

To opponents of religious freedom that seems like a bad thing.  For those who respect liberty and religious diversity, the right of a religious entity to act according to its beliefs is not just a good thing, it is a fundamental right that should be protected in the law.  That is why we need Measure Three.

WASHINGTON—Congress should assess every budget decision by how it reflects the shared responsibility of the government and other institutions to protect human life and dignity, especially of the poor and vulnerable, said the bishop who chairs the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a May 8 letter to the House of Representatives.

“The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,” wrote Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, as the House prepared to vote on a reconciliation package for the 2013 budget. “However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.”

Bishop Blaire singled out an “unfair” proposal to change the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of immigrant families, “the large majority of whom are American citizens,” proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) that would affect all poor families and be “a direct threat to their human dignity,” and the cutting of the Social Services Block Grant, “an important source of funding for programs throughout the country” that serve “the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims.”

The full text of Bishop Blaire’s letter is available online: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/reconciliation-letter-to-house-2012-05-08.pdf

The primary focus of the Action Alert is the HHS “Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)” published March 21 in the Federal Register 16501-8. HHS is seeking comments on how the final rule for the contraceptive mandate published February 15 can accommodate religious organizations. The ANPRM does not correct the fundamental problems in the mandate. Comments on the ANPRM are due by June 19. A final rule on the matter of the ANPRM will be issued at a subsequent unspecified date.

The secondary focus of the Action Alert is legislation. Members of Congress continue to be urged to co-sponsor and promote the passage of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467).

See: nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292.

WASHINGTON (CNS) — Religious liberty was topic A at the eighth annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, held April 19 at a Washington hotel.

“Never in the lifetime of anyone present here has the religious liberty of the American people been as threatened as it is today,” warned Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus, in remarks to the estimated 800 people in attendance.

Read the rest . . .

WASHINGTON—As Congress began working on the FY 2013 budget and spending bills this week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) wrote several letters that repeated and reinforced the bishops’ ongoing  call to create a “circle of protection” around  poor and vulnerable people and programs that meet their basic needs and protect their lives and dignity. The bishops’ message calls on Congress and the Administration to protect essential help for poor families and vulnerable children and to put the poor first in budget priorities. The bishops’ letters oppose measures that reduce resources for essential safety net programs.

In the letters, Bishops Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, and Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace, respectively, urged Congress to resist proposed cuts in hunger and nutrition programs at home and abroad saying that “a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons.”

On April 4, Bishop Blaire cautioned that “at a time when the need for assistance from [affordable housing] programs is growing, cutting funds for them could cause thousands of individuals and families to lose their housing and worsen the hardship of thousands more in need of affordable housing.” He also reminded Congress that the Catholic community is one of the largest private, nonprofit providers of affordable housing in the country and is deeply involved in meeting the health housing and nutrition needs of families across the nation.

Bishops Blaire and Pates reaffirmed the “moral criteria to guide these difficult budget decisions” outlined in their March 6 budget letter:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times…

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

In April 16 and April 17 letters to the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee addressing cuts required by the budget resolution, Bishop Blaire said “The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.” Bishop Blaire also wrote that cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP- food stamps) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will hurt hungry children, poor families, low-income workers and other vulnerable people. Additionally, he wrote that if cuts to the federal budget need to be made, savings should first be found in programs that target more affluent and powerful interests.

The housing letter is available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/housing-homelessness/upload/Letter-to-House-Appropriations-on-FY-2013-2012-04-04.pdf

The agricultural spending bill letter is available at: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/hunger-food-nutrition/upload/Letter-to-House-Committee-on-Agriculture-2012-04-16.pdf

The SNAP/food stamps letter is available at: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/hunger-food-nutrition/upload/Joint-Letter-to-Senate-2012-04-16.pdf

The Child Tax Credit letter is available at: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/poverty/domestic/upload/Letter-to-House-Ways-and-Means-on-CTC-2012-04-17.pdf

The March 6 letter on the federal budget is available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/Letter-to-Congress-Federal-Budget-2012-03-06.pdf

Call or email your Member of Congress and urge them reject any proposals that would exclude immigrant working families from the Child Tax Credit, a vital source of security for many working poor families.

Current Situation: The House Committee on Ways and Means may vote on legislation Wednesday that would exclude immigrant working families from claiming the Child Tax Credit. The tax credit helps millions of working families escape poverty.

USCCB Position/Church Teaching: Our Tradition teaches that all workers have a right to a wage that allows them to raise and support a family in dignity. The Child Tax Credit helps low-wage workers support their children.

Today, Bishop Stephen Blaire, Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote to the Ways and Means Committee in opposition to proposals that would exclude immigrant working families and their children from the Credit.

Contact Representative Rick Berg Now

323 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515

Phone: 202-225-2611
Bismarck Phone: 701-224-0355
Fargo Phone: 701-235-9760
E-Mail: http://berg.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=58§iontree=76,58

Christopher Dodson, Executive Director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference will be at NDSU’s Memorial Union (Rose Room) Wednesday, April 18 to talk about Religious Liberty: What’s Happening To It?

The talk begins at 8:00 p.m. and is sponsored by the St. Paul’s Catholic Newman Center.