The North Dakota Catholic Conference has issued the following statement on the Fargo District Court’s decision to delay implementation of North Dakota’s Abortion Drug Safety law:

The North Dakota Catholic Conference is disappointed that Judge Corwin has again put on hold implementation of North Dakota’s abortion drug safety law.  

The law, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, has one purpose: the safety of women.  The legislation was not intended to, nor does it, prohibit the use of abortion drugs.  It only requires that they be used according to the protocol that was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration when it approved the drug for use in the United States.

Particularly shameful is the fact that abortion proponents are using this case to get the courts to declare a right to abortion under the state constitution.  If they succeed, all of North Dakota’s abortion laws could be struck down, threatening the health and lives of both unborn children and women. 

We remain confident, however, that the intent of the Legislative Assembly will be respected and that the courts will respect North Dakotan’s desire to build a culture of life that respects and cares for both women and unborn children.

“Catholic education has had an important role in the fulfilling the lives of citizens of Bismarck and Mandan. For the Catholic parishes, parochial schools have been an issue of faith, shaping the student’s spirit as well as his or her mind. To see Catholic education here reinvigorated and looking toward tomorrow bodes well for the community.”

Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/catholic-schools-unification-makes-sense/article_91778440-58ab-11e1-b082-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1meQDzW7e

WASHINGTON—The mandate for virtually all private insurers, including most religiously-affiliated organizations such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charities, to include contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs that can cause early abortions in their employee health plans is akin to mandating that a kosher deli serve pork, the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told Congress.

In his February 16 testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, outlined the bishops’ opposition to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate through an extended parable of a country where a new law requires all businesses to serve pork, including kosher delicatessens.

When the Orthodox Jewish community expresses its outrage, Bishop Lori said, it’s met with arguments of “But pork is good for you,” “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times,” and “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

Bishop Lori’s parable had a happy ending, that people recognized “it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich,” “it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state,” and “it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.”

“The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes.”

The full text of Bishop Lori’s testimony may be found online: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/lori-testimony-for-oversight-on-religious-freedom-2012-02-16.pdf

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Senate urgently needs to support legislation that would apply longstanding federal law on conscience protection to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), said the chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

In a February 15 letter to all Senators, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston explained how the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (S. 1476) is especially needed since a new mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will force almost all health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including drugs that can cause an early abortion, and sterilizations. Even many religious organizations will not be exempt from the mandate.

This rule, Cardinal DiNardo noted, was finalized on February 10. On the same day the White House announced it would develop a mechanism for applying the rule to non-exempt religious employers, claiming it would shift costs for contraceptive coverage to insurers.

“It is little or no comfort that, rather than being forced to propose such coverage, religious organizations will simply have it imposed on them,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The argument that they will not really have to subsidize the coverage, because insurers will offer it ‘free of charge,’ runs up against the reality that this coverage will be integrated into their overall health plan, and subsidized with the premiums paid by employer and employee for that plan.”

He added: “The Administration’s rule makes no provision for the rights of insurers, even religiously affiliated insurers, but places responsibility for enforcing the mandate more squarely than ever on their shoulders. This is a radical departure from current law, under which a health plan that excludes contraception can be sold even to federal employees if the carrier has any religious objection to such coverage.”

Cardinal DiNardo outlined the scope of the proposed Senate bill, noting that it does not support discriminatory decisions to withhold basic coverage, does not free anyone from responsibilities under other state or federal laws, and does not allow anyone to deny coverage for high-cost treatments using morality and religion as a pretext.

Cardinal DiNardo explained what the bill does achieve: “It states that the new lists of mandated benefits for private health plans created under PPACA will not forbid those who provide, sponsor and purchase health coverage to negotiate a health plan that is consistent with the religious beliefs and moral convictions of those involved.” Thus, he said, “it simply ensures that new requirements under PPACA are not used to take away a freedom of conscience that Americans have enjoyed under federal law until now.”

“If the needless dispute over this issue were resolved through this legislation, Congress and the Administration could return to the most pressing of all the real problems – the fact that many millions of Americans still lack basic coverage for health care that supports and sustains life,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “Let us begin the task by respecting each other’s values that call so many of us to work for life-affirming health care for all in the first place.”

The full text of the letter is available online: www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/DearSenatorfeb151.pdf

“President Barack Obama’s attempt to dodge political flak over his administration’s attack on religious freedom is nothing more than a shell game.”

Read it here.

WASHINGTON—The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said in a press briefing at the White House on February 13, “…I would simply note with regard to the bishops that they never supported health care reform to begin with…”

“This is not the case,” said Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“Since 1919, the United States Catholic bishops have supported decent health care for all and government and private action to advance this essential goal,” Bishop Blaire said. “Long before the current battles, the Catholic Church was persistently and consistently advocating for this overdue national priority.”

In the recent health care debate the USCCB called universal and affordable health care “an urgent national priority and moral imperative.” The USCCB’s criteria insisted reform should be truly universal, protect human life and conscience and not discriminate against immigrants. “The USCCB opposed the final legislation because it failed this test, a judgment sadly but clearly borne out by the failure of the law and the recent regulation to protect conscience and religious liberty,” explained Bishop Blaire.

“I hope those who made or repeated this false statement will correct the record and report the bishops’ long and consistent record of support for health care which protects the life, dignity and consciences of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.”

Note from North Dakota Catholic Conference Executive Director:

Both opponents and supporters of health care reform seem to get this wrong.  Opponents wrongly criticize the bishops for supporting the legislation.  Proponents wrongly criticize the bishops for always opposing reform.  This resource created at the time provides the facts: http://ndcatholic.org/FAQs/index.html

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229389/group/Opinion/

BISMARCK — In her letter, Betsy Perkins accuses Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., of failing the truth test about the new sterilization and contraception mandate (“‘Controversial’ rule mirrors established law,” Page D3, Feb. 12).

In fact, she fails the truth test on several points.

Perkins claims that the new federal mandate is not new, citing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling from 2000 and the alleged existence of similar laws in 60 percent of the states.

Here’s the truth. The EEOC recommendation was just that — a recommendation. It has never had the force of law. If it had, the new rule would be moot.

What about those “60 percent” of the states? All but three of those states contain a broad exemption for religious employers. Moreover, even without a religious exemption, religious employers already can avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.

The new Department of Health and Human Services mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

On the contraception coverage alone, the new rule is unprecedented. But here’s another fact. The new mandate includes sterilization, which is not included in any state mandate except in Vermont. But Vermont has a religious employer and self-insured exemption.

Perkins also wrongly claims that the new mandate merely states that if an employer offers a prescription drug plan, it also must cover contraception. On the contrary, the new mandate states that insurers or employers must provide sterilization and contraception at no charge, regardless of whether they offer a prescription drug plan.

The truth is this: The mandate, even under the “compromise” recently offered by the president, is an unprecedented infringement upon religious liberty. Even the latest proposal still treats religious mission-based operations as not truly religious.

The irony is that many religions teach that faith means more than worshiping in churches, synagogues and mosques. It means feeding the poor, burying the dead, healing the sick, housing the homeless and caring for those in need.

But the federal government has now declared that the more you do that, the less religious you are in its eyes.

Christopher Dodson

Dodson is executive director of and general counsel for the North Dakota Catholic Conference.

1. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

2. The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.

3. The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.

4. Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

5. The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”

6. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

Source: Sister Mary Ann Walsh   http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-more-things-everyone-should-know.html

Regulatory changes limited and unclear

Rescission of mandate only complete solution

Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, andpregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral:insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.

·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protectionfor key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same wayas the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

President Obama’s February 10 offer of a limited and unclear compromise does not change the urgent need for legislation to correct such threats to religious liberty and conscience rights. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) to ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It is more important than ever that Members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure – or thanked if they are already co-sponsoring the bill. For the list of current co-sponsors, please check H.R. 1179 and S. 1467 at: thomas.loc.gov.

Get the latest bulletin insert here.