• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • House Panel Hears How HHS Mandate Tramples on Conscience Rights

    Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health held a hearing asking the question, “Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and Access to Care?” Many of the panelists responded with a resounding “yes.”

    Fulfilling a broader requirement of Obamacare that dictates mandatory coverage of certain “preventative services,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an interim final rule in August that requires nearly all insurance companies to cover contraception, sterilization, and education and counseling regarding such services—without cost to the insured. The rule includes mandatory coverage of ethically controversial drugs like ella, which can abort an early pregnancy.

    Employers with moral and ethical objections to covering such services will find little relief in the mandate’s religious exemption. The narrowly drawn exemption is available only for entities whose primary mission is to inculcate religious belief and who hire and serve co-religionists. In their comments on the rule, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops quipped that under such an extraordinarily limited definition of a religious employer, “even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as ‘religious.’”

    Jane Belford, chancellor and general counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington, explained:

    HHS has drafted a religious exemption that is so narrow that it excludes virtually all Catholic hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and charitable organizations, none of which impose a litmus test on those they serve, as the HHS mandate would have them do.

    Testimony and discussion at the hearing yesterday addressed this exceptional attack on the conscience rights of employers who will now be forced to choose between compromising their convictions and providing insurance coverage that violates deeply held beliefs.

    As William Cox, president and CEO of the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare, pointed out, the mandate will force religious employers to “cooperate under governmental compulsion with conduct that is inconsistent with their religious and moral beliefs, or cease functioning altogether.”

    That dire decision may just cause a decrease in access to care as employers are forced to forego providing coverage rather than disregard their beliefs. Cox warned that “these mandates will force providers and others of conscience to choose between violating their consciences or no longer providing or paying for health care and other services, and curtailing access to care, particularly for some of the most vulnerable among us.”

    David Stevens, M.D., CEO of the Christian Medical Association, also suggested in written testimony that the “meaningless” religious exemption “can potentially cause a decrease in the provision of health insurance for employees of pro-life health care employers who want to avoid conflicts of conscience regarding the subsidy and implied endorsement of controversial contraceptives.”

    The panelists suggested that the narrow policy may fly in the face of the appropriate relationship between government and private, faith-based employers. As Cox noted:

    HHS’s definition of religious employer raises a fundamental question: may the government determine what parts of a bona fide religious organization are religious and what parts are secular? And, in particular, may the government make such distinctions in order to infringe the religious freedom of that portion of the organization the government declares to be secular?

    Religiously affiliated organizations play an important role in advancing civil society through health care, education, and a host of social services. Policymakers should advance the cause of religious freedom—not only for religiously affiliated organization but all people of conscience—by ensuring that employers and individuals are able to provide and buy health insurance that accords with their deeply held beliefs.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to House Panel Hears How HHS Mandate Tramples on Conscience Rights

    1. Annonymous says:

      How is it any way legal for our federal government to dictate details of a private transaction? Not only must we now buy insurance come 2014, we have to buy what our government elites declare as fit? what gall!

      Taking decisions out of the hands of those most directly affected is one of the central patterns of the political left that make them dangerous to the very people they think they are helping. This is not idealism. It is arrogance — and too often, it is ignorant arrogance, as in this case.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Seems government always mandating force to test "Christian" beliefs? What are they so against Christianity for? Jesus didn't preach a religion so what are they so against Him for? Too much of a Man who inspired self worth and worth in our fellow man and woman as individuals born of different wombs? A Man who builds personal dignity? Personal integrity? Human endurance? What is it they are so against the most peaceful Man on earth!

      Some Muslim lady made a scene in court, she was offended by the cross? what does she have to do with it that she would be so blatantly offended by an object? People with such intolerances aren't welcome in America! People and government (WHAT'S WORSE THAN UNETHICAL) has to stop these attacks they have absolutely no reason for but to show to be total disgraces by their own intolerances!!

      If a person wants to murder their fetus they can go to where the murder is supported! Why interfere to burden by force, anywhere else??

      Too many unsparing, out of character members of American government are threatened by those of self worth that equals what government can't give us, freedom. Too much democratic government interfering in the freedom of the people, places and America's recovery. Because Christians offer charity that no other faith seems to offer, government abuses their authority to mandate rules opposing the freedom of belief? Get these pigs out! Why doesn't government force other faiths to provide the same charities or really just keep out of unconstitutional matters?

    3. Bobbie says:

      oh yeah before I forget, government tax paid preventative services are a waste! totally speculative and it's still up to the person. If people know basic health which is or used to be taught in school, plus all other public resources not associated with government, people have all the information they need to take care whatever way they choose! What are the results of government tax paid preventative services? You won't get a true result because it's SPECULATIVE!

    4. Stirling says:

      The government is just trying to force this "one size fits all" mandate down Americas business throats.. If you think about it the only way to achive this is to remove any "individuality" that makes people unique (which can be religion or beliefs). If a government can cleanse all that what makes us individuals into a compliant collective then they no impetiments to total power.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.