The Administration's Mandate

 

The Administration’s contraceptive/abortifacient mandate continues to be the priority concern in 2015.

Congress needs to pass the Health Care Conscience Rights Act. The measure recently was re-introduced in the House (H.R. 940) by Reps. Diane Black (R-TN), John Fleming (R-LA), and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). On February 13, Cardinal Seán O’Malley and Archbishop William Lori of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged House Members to support and co-sponsor H.R. 940. For NCHLA’s Action Alert, see: nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292.

How has this debate evolved to date?

  • The Administration’s contraceptive coverage mandate, first announced in 2011, went into effect for most health care plans on August 1, 2012. Under the mandate, the health care plans are required to cover abortifacient drugs and devices (such as the IUD, Depo-Provera, “morning-after” pills, and the abortion-inducing drug Ella), contraceptives, and sterilization procedures for women, as well as “education and counseling” to promote these to all “women of reproductive capacity,” including minor girls.
     
  • Under a rule released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2013, the mandate allows only a very narrow exemption for a “religious employer,” chiefly aimed at what HHS calls “houses of worship.” Other religious organizations offering education, health care and charitable services did not qualify for the exemption. The mandate began to be enforced against them January 1, 2014, under an “accommodation” that only changes the way the objectionable items must be provided to all employees and their dependents.
     
  • In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate as applied to closely held for-profit corporations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993. However, the Court did not decide whether the RFRA provides protection to non-profit entities. See: www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-116.cfm. Two new Administration rules did not resolve these serious problems. In its comments, the bishops’ Office of General Counsel concluded that the “accommodation” set forth in one rule still required employers who fall outside the government’s narrow definition of “religious employer” “to facilitate the objectionable coverage,” and that the other rule “would make the current situation worse” for closely-held for-profit organizations. See: www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-164.cfm.

For the latest information on the Court, see:www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/. Fifty-six non-profit cases are characterized as climbing their way up to the Supreme Court, while 49 for-profit cases are viewed as now sliding back to lower courts for resolution.

Key fact sheet includes:

For additional information on conscience protection and religious liberty, see:usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection.