![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/85\/2013\/02\/Cardinal-Dolan-POTUS.jpg\" "\\"Cardinal-Dolan-POTUS\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen I was reading the HHS Mandate Rule proposal, I noticed a pretty big problem: folks have coverage forced upon them, whether they want it or not. Later, I wrote that \u00a0the Church would react to the current proposal negatively if the HHS was mandating pornography be forced upon all<\/a>.<\/p>\n As it turns out, the inability to opt out of coverage was one of the points Timothy Cardinal Dolan made this afternoon when the USCCB released the letter he signed saying the new proposal falls short of meeting the concerns of the Church. There are a number of other reasons too. The USCCB press release was entitled,<\/p>\n HHS Proposal Falls Short In Meeting Church Concerns; Bishops Look Forward To Addressing Issues With Administration<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is Cardinal Dolan\u2019s statement in full,<\/p>\n Statement of Cardinal Timothy Dolan Responding to Feb. 1 Proposal from HHS<\/p>\n For almost a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have worked hard to support the right of every person to affordable, accessible, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare.As we continue to do so, our changeless values remain the same.We promote the protection of the dignity of all human life and the innate rights that flow from it, including the right to life from conception to natural death; care for the poorest among us and the undocumented; the right of the Church to define itself, its ministries, and its ministers; and freedom of conscience.<\/p>\n Last Friday, the Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the HHS mandate that requires coverage for sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortions.The Administration indicates that it has heard some previously expressed concerns and that it is open to dialogue.With release of the NPRM, the Administration seeks to offer a response to serious matters which have been raised throughout the past year.We look forward to engaging with the Administration, and all branches and levels of government, to continue to address serious issues that remain. Our efforts will require additional, careful study.Only in this way can we best assure that healthcare for every woman, man and child is achieved without harm to our first, most cherished freedom.<\/p>\n In evaluating Friday\u2019s action regarding the HHS mandate, our reference remains the statement of our Administrative Committee made last March, United for Religious Freedom, and affirmed by the entire body of bishops in June 2012.<\/p>\n In that statement, we first expressed concern over the mandate\u2019s \u201cexceedingly narrow\u201d four-part definition of \u201creligious employer,\u201d one that exempted our houses of worship, but left \u201cour great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need\u201d subject to the mandate.This created \u201ca \u2018second class\u2019 of citizenship within our religious community,\u201d \u201cweakening [federal law\u2019s] healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.\u201dAnd the exemption effectuated this distinction by requiring \u201camong other things, [that employers] must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith.\u201d<\/p>\n On Friday, the Administration proposed to drop the first three parts of the four-part test.This might address the last of the concerns above, but it seems not to address the rest.The Administration\u2019s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries. It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education, and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an \u201caccommodation,\u201d rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches. And finally, it seems to take away something that we had previously\u2014the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.<\/p>\n Second, United for Religious Freedom explained that the religious ministries not deemed \u201creligious employers\u201d would suffer the severe consequence of \u201cbe[ing] forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.\u201dAfter Friday, it appears that the government would require all employees in our \u201caccommodated\u201d ministries to have the illicit coverage\u2014they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children\u2014under a separate policy.In part because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies.Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities. Here, too, we will continue to analyze the proposal and to advocate for changes to the final rule that reflect these concerns.<\/p>\n Third, the bishops explained that the \u201cHHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.\u201d This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it.Friday\u2019s action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this \u201cthird class.\u201d In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath.We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.<\/p>\n Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few.Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage.We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions\u2014we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks.Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration\u2019s invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all.At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.<\/p>\n Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York Source: USCCB website<\/a>.<\/p>\n UPDATES<\/strong>:<\/p>\n CNS: Proposed rules fall short of meeting bishops\u2019 concerns, cardinal says<\/a> Whispers in the Loggia: They Did\u2026Or Did They<\/a>?<\/p>\n
\nFebruary 7, 2013<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nCardinal Newman Society Thanks USCCB for Standing Against the HHS Mandate<\/a>.<\/p>\n