 |
|---|
| Home |
| Magazine |
| Interviews |
| Policy Papers |
| Donate |
| Story |
|
Contraception Mandate Still Controversial The DHHS bulletin is a slightly amended version of one issued in February. It seeks to clarify “three points: (1) that the safe harbor [exemption for religious employers] is also available to non-profit organizations with religious objections to some but not all contraceptive coverage, as clarified herein; (2) that group health plans that took some action to try to exclude or limit contraceptive coverage that was not successful as of February 10, 2012, are not for that reason precluded from eligibility for the safe harbor, as clarified herein; and (3) that the safe harbor may be invoked without prejudice by non-profit organizations that are uncertain whether they qualify for the religious employer exemption, as clarified herein.” The bulletin clarifies that a “temporary enforcement safe harbor” is “available to non-exempted, non-grandfathered group health plans established or maintained by non-profit organizations whose plans have consistently not covered all or the same subset of contraceptive services for religious reasons at any point from the original issuance date of this bulletin (i.e., February 10, 2012).” However, the safe harbor represents little more than a delay, in that non-profit employers that do not qualify as a strictly religious entity as defined by DHHS, must include the controversial coverage by August 2013 (or the policy year that begins after that date). The mandate only includes an exemption for groups that meet its narrow definition of a “religious institution,” such as churches, “whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith.” This has raised widespread concern that other religious organizations, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, and service charities, will not qualify for the exemption, and will then face the choice of providing coverage to which they object or pay a $100 fine per day per employee. Two evangelical Christian Colleges, Grace College and Seminary in Indiana and Biola University in California, filed a lawsuit August 23 challenging the mandate. The colleges are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has already filed three other lawsuits against the mandate on behalf of two colleges and two businesses in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Colorado. “This mandate leaves religious employers with no real choice: you must either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be taxed for your faith,” said ADF senior counsel Gregory S. Baylor in a press release. “Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this—and worse—to everyone.” A total of at least 56 plaintiffs have filed at least 23 cases against the Administration regarding this controversial mandate. At least four of those include Catholic business owners in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Michigan, who say the mandate violates their consciences. Related resources: Copyright © 2012. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
|
