New Health and Human Services procedures leave unborn life hanging in the balance. (Photo credit: Sheknows.com) |
Forty-six years ago the Supreme Court ruled states cannot prohibit the sale of contraceptives. On August 1, 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted rules as part of Obamacare that mandate full insurance coverage for “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” While this news may please many women frustrated by having to pay all or part of the cost of contraceptives, the new HHS rules also mandates full coverage of abortifacients, birth control drugs that causes abortion.
To sooth objections from religious groups, HHS allows specifically religious organizations to exclude contraception coverage. However, a religious employer seeking exemption would only qualify if it:
“(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization.”
Several religious groups have noted that the narrowness of the exemption’s criteria means that pro-life groups not affiliated with any religious denomination would not qualify. It also would include religious charities that serve all in need, not just fellow faith adherents. Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity director Jeanne Monahan noted, “The new rule will force many Americans to violate their conscience or refrain from participating in health care insurance.” Of course refraining from purchasing health insurance will become illegal under Obamacare.
“Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers,” said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He went on to explain, “For example, under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics. Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public? Health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not undermine that goal.”
Naturally, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) was ecstatic about the mandates, but bemoaned the religious employers exemption: “We are troubled by the interim final rule, part of today’s decision, that makes it possible for “religious employers” to opt out of contraceptive coverage. Such an exemption was not required by the Affordable Care Act and could potentially inhibit the access of some women to the contraceptive services and supplies on which they rely to prevent unintended pregnancy.” RCRC includes agencies of The United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, The United Church of Christ, and other liberal religious groups.
Before Mondays announcement, Bill Saunders of Americans United for Life and member of the IRD board noted, “At the [Institute of Medicine meetings], [which excluded pro-life groups] nearly every official presenter urged that all FDA approved contraceptives be included in the preventive care mandate. Such a definition would require coverage for so-called emergency contraceptives, including ella, which can kill a human embryo even after implantation. Thus, if ‘contraception’ is included in the definition of ‘preventive care,’ Americans will be forced to subsidize abortion-causing drugs with their insurance premiums.”
HHS could have easily excluded the abortion drugs from the mandates to accommodate many religious believers. But instead the department is more concerned about bowing to the wishes of their pro-abortion constituency.
This HHS decision is yet one more prong of ongoing attacks on faith-based organizations and principled individuals serving their communities and holding deep convictions on life and conception. Earlier attacks on people of conscience have taken place at the state level. In the past few years, several states including New Jersey, Illinois, and Washington have passed laws prohibiting pharmacists from refusing to prescribe drugs that cause abortions or can be used to commit suicide. With no lack of pharmacies from which to choose, the practical impact of these laws has been to force pro-life pharmacists to choose between profession and conscience. Essentially, these states say, accept abortion on demand or lose your job.
In Washington State, the Board of Pharmacy established regulations prohibiting pharmacists from making a “decision to not dispense lawfully prescribed drugs or devices or to not distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies.” Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D) threatened to remove the entire Board of Pharmacy if it allowed for a conscience clause. Imagine the outcry if a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army were refused conscientious objector status and was instead flown to the front lines of Afghanistan. If the U.S. Constitution does not protect individuals from participating in what some see as a form of murder, who does it protect?
There is a fine line between government funded and mandated non-surgical abortions and surgical abortions. The authors of the report that led to the new mandates seemingly lamented that they could not also mandate surgical abortions arguing, “Despite the health and well-being benefits to some women, abortion services were considered to be outside of the project’s scope, given the restrictions contained in the Affordable Care Act.” Reading the full report by the Committee on Preventative Services for Women, it is possible to conclude that pregnancy is a disease and children are a health burden. Loudly decrying the effect of unplanned pregnancy, the report entirely fails to offer any solutions precluding sexual gratification. Since sterilization is also now mandated for coverage, a potential waiting room pamphlet could suggest: “If you can’t be bothered with condoms or the now free birth control pills, then maybe sterilization is right for you.”
In response to this refusal to protect the right of conscience on healthcare matters, two congressmen have introduced the 2011 Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. This bill (H.R. 1179), introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), would “amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.”
It is becoming clear that unless it is significantly rewritten, as Obamacare is rolled out over the coming years, the effect of the legislation will be to force Christians and others who are pro-life to choose between livelihood and conviction. In the increasingly secularist environment, it becomes exceptionally clear that not only must the Christian be diligent to protect and defend the rights of the innocent and the unborn, we must also be diligent to protect our own rights to abstain from government mandates that conflict with the dictates of conscience.
Related articles:
No comments yet
Leave a Reply