USCCB Corrects Biden’s “Facts”

on October 12, 2012

By Addie Darling

Towards the end of last night’s Vice Presidential Debate, Vice President Joe Biden and candidate Paul Ryan- both Catholics- touched upon several contentious topics surrounding the Church. Inevitably the conversation eventually turned to the newest of these issues, the HHS mandate requiring all employers -including Catholics or others who have a conscientious objection to contraceptives or abortifacients.

Ryan established the problem surrounding both the prevalence of abortion, and its link to the coercive elements of the HHS mandate.

What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our Church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be ‘safe, legal and rare.’ Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding: taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid.

Biden dismissed this claim, saying:

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact.  Today, the USCCB issued a reply to the Vice President’s fabrications:

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

Unfortunately for the Vice President, his facts don’t fit with reality. Under the HHS Mandate of the Obama-Biden Administration, nearly every Catholic institution in our nation must refer contraception, has to refer contraception,  pay for contraception, and be a vehicle to get contraception in every insurance policy they provide. If they refuse to do so, they will face millions of dollars in fines that will cripple their ability to live out the principles of their faith. And that is a fact.

  1. Comment by dougindeap on October 15, 2012 at 2:01 am

    Actually, Biden has it right, and the bishops have it wrong. Their claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a “big lie”–a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.

    Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

    The second choice does not amount to “violating” the law and paying a “fine,” as some suppose. As the law “does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance”
    (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such “mandate” to “violate.” Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.

    Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a “large employer” (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option–for reasons entirely unrelated to religion.
    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)

    In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is “morally sound.” While also considering this option “unfortunate” in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers’ “moral connection” to that coverage would be “remote.” https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821

    Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.

  2. Comment by Eric Lytle on October 16, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Biden seems very prone to cranial-caudal conjunctions.

  3. Pingback by The Election, Adam Hamilton and Shades of Gray « Juicy Ecumenism on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 am

    […] What Hamilton failed to mention, however, is that a faithful Catholic cannot, in good conscience, promote abortion, nor promote a re-fashioned vision of […]

  4. Comment by Marco Bell on October 20, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Thank you dougindeap!
    Knowledge is power…let’s hope the Republicans gain some knowledge before they claim any power. God forbid!

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.