![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/7\/2013\/02\/Sebelius_Getty_p-255x255.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI was hearing rumors last night that the Obama administration may be walking back the more onerous, obnoxious and probably-unconstitutional tenets of Obamacare\u2019s HHS Mandate, which rides roughshod over the first amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and contradicts Obama\u2019s own words about the sacredness of a conscience.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s the first suggestions<\/a> that something will come today (scroll down): <\/p>\n *** White House to announce contraception rule? We are hearing that the Obama White House is telling abortion-rights and family-planning organizations that the administration\u2019s revised contraception rule \u2014 pertaining to the health-care law and religious-affiliated employers \u2014 could be announced as early as today. So keep an eye out for this. It\u2019s our understand this new revised rule will make it a little easier for religious organizations to qualify for the exemption on providing contraception. But we also understand that key women\u2019s groups have signed off on this change. More to come later today.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This CNN piece is rather garbled and unclear.<\/a>. We\u2019ll have to wait and see. <\/p>\n ::::::UPDATE:::::<\/strong>This fact sheet came down<\/a> as I was writing:<\/p>\n Exemption for Religious Employers<\/p>\n Group health plans of \u201creligious employers\u201d are exempted from having to provide contraceptive coverage, if they have religious objections to contraception. <\/p>\n Today\u2019s NPRM would simplify the existing definition of a \u201creligious employer\u201d as it relates to contraceptive coverage.<\/p>\n The NPRM would eliminate criteria that a religious employer:<\/p>\n have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; This proposed change is intended to clarify that a house of worship would not be excluded from the exemption because, for example, it provides charitable social services to persons of different religious faiths or employs persons of different religious faiths. The Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules. <\/p>\n Creating Accommodations for Non Profit Religious Organizations <\/p>\n Consistent with the Advance NPRM, the NPRM proposes accommodations for additional non profit religious organizations, while also separately providing enrollees contraceptive coverage with no co-pays. An eligible organization would be defined as an organization that:<\/p>\n opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered under Section 2713 of the PHS Act, on account of religious objections; Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ::::END UPDATE:::<\/strong><\/p>\n So, no exemption for business like Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n The USCCB\u2019s first response is wise:<\/strong> they\u2019re happy to study this<\/a>. Dolan has good reason to hedge his remarks; he believed Obama once, and got burned. <\/p>\n In the face of over 40 lawsuits<\/strong> brought against the Mandate by various Catholic entities \u2014 including by the Obama-friendly University of Notre Dame \u2014 the resistance by Hobby Lobby and other businesses bringing suit, and (perhaps) by the public declaration by bishops that they would go to jail rather than obey the mandate<\/a>, the administration is showing some sense in reconsidering the law\u2019s sweeping breadth. The most progressive (and least church-loving) of Obama\u2019s base might have applauded the mandate, but most sane people understand that infringing on the constitutional rights of one group sets a dangerous precedent for tramping on other fundamental rights, in turn. <\/p>\n So, we\u2019ll see. Then we\u2019ll know. Stay tuned and head back here, because today is going to be a big news day. Between the death of Ed Koch<\/a>, the Menendez story, the ongoing media gush as Hillary Clinton leaves the State Department and of course, the but HUGE story on Archbishop Gomez\u2019 restriction of Cardinal Mahony<\/a>, it\u2019s going to be busy, busy, busy. Go read Rocco Palmo for the Mahony story<\/a> \u2014 he has a great piece up, and also Deacon Greg<\/a>.<\/p>\n UPDATE: I\u2019m seeing more spin from some of the MSM journalists on twitter. They\u2019re quoting Catholics United as saying this is \u201ca victory\u201d, but Catholics United initially dissed the Bishops for resisting the mandate<\/a>, so take that for what it\u2019s worth.<\/p>\n Like me, Rebecca Hamilton is feeling a little wary and writes I\u2019ll wait to hear what Obama says he\u2019s going to do. Then I\u2019ll wait to see what he actually does<\/a>. And golly, she\u2019s a Democrat! :-)<\/p>\n UPDATE II: UPDATE III: The Obama administration believes that conscientious objections to contraception should prevail in the non-profit sector, but not in for-profit corporations. Why? Do employees of non-profits need contraception less? Do the conscience claims of their leaders matter more? Why are tax-exempt organizations granted more rights than those which pay taxes?<\/p>\n Hoftra University\u2019s Ronald J. Colombo spoke to First Things about the administration\u2019s new regulations: \u201cThe distinction between non-profit and for-profit is a convenient rule of thumb, but when it comes to constitutional matters such as freedom of religion it\u2019s not appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere are for-profit corporations that are much more religious than non-profits,\u201d he said. So, yeah, read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n And Frank Weathers has more<\/a> on the Mandate, and the press release from HHS<\/a>. He writes: <\/p>\n in a nutshell. Religious non-profits are the only organizations that these proposed rules will apply to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nprimarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and
\nprimarily serve persons who share its religious tenets.
\nThe simple definition of \u201creligious employer\u201d for purposes of the exemption would follow a section of the Internal Revenue Code, and would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations, as defined by Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii)<\/p>\n
\nis organized and operates as a nonprofit entity;
\nholds itself out as a religious organization; and
\nself-certifies that it meets these criteria and specifies the contraceptive services for which it objects to providing coverage.<\/p>\n
\nThe Washington Post is<\/strong> out the gate and spinning this as a great protection of religious freedom<\/a> but note, as I said, the consciences of for-profit business owners are not exempted. [Little Update: I wish I\u2019d screencapped that WaPo peice, as it has been edited since I linked]<\/em><\/p>\n
\nFollow this twitter feed by attorney Gabriel Malor<\/a><\/strong> as he reads the original mandate and this new info as it comes out. He is not impressed, and he\u2019s all over this story: \u201cSo you won\u2019t have to be a monastic order to qualify for the HHS exemption any more, but no help for private employers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nMatthew Schmitz at First Things<\/a>:<\/strong> <\/p>\n
\n[\u2026]
\nThere are other possible issues with this proposed accommodation. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n