NCBC Statement

		Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:42:00 PM The National Catholic Bioethics Center (the NCBC) consistently has voiced its strong opposition to the mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that all employers provide insurance coverage free of charge to their employees for contraceptives, surgical sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs and devices.  There was widespread outrage to this measure which was seen by many as an attempt to force religious organizations to violate their moral convictions and religious beliefs by providing drugs, procedures and devices that they considered to be immoral because they violated human dignity. The opposition was so strong and from so many different quarters that President Obama proposed what he called a “compromise” on Friday, February 10.  The NCBC has been involved in providing analyses of the “compromise” to its various constituents and collaborating with others involved with trying to influence public policy.  As soon as the government documents were actually made available and studied, it became obvious that there was no true compromise at all but rather some slight modifications to procedure that left the substance of the mandate entirely intact.  In fact, the day the “compromise” was announced, the mandate was entered into the federal register with no changes. Since the announcement of the “compromise” organizations of varied religious beliefs and political affiliation have called upon President Obama to withdraw the HHS mandate in its entirety.    Some of the fundamental reasons the “Mandate” must continue to be opposed are: The unacceptable definition of what constitutes a religion for protection under the constitution.  HHS has determined that for an organization to qualify for a “religious” exemption it must hire and serve primarily its own co-religionists and try to convert those who do not share the same faith.  This unconscionably narrow definition of what constitutes a religion would not cover the Catholic Church in its own self understanding.  In other words, it would not even cover the largest religious body in the United States.  It is a matter of religious belief that Catholics are commanded to serve all in need not just its own co-religionists.  This goes to the heart of the teachings of the Church’s founder who told the pointed story of the man who had fallen among thieves and been left beaten by the roadside.  His co-religionists passed him by, but the one who did not share his faith, the Good Samaritan, is the one who stopped to help him and bind up his wounds.  Jesus told us to go and do likewise and that even as we have done a service to the least of our neighbors, we have done it to Him.  It is unjustifiable for the federal government, by bureaucratic fiat, to make the arbitrary judgment concerning what organization constitutes a religion.  This is one area where the mandate violates the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is often pointed out that this narrow definition of religion is in place in a number of states already.  That is not accurate: there are only three states with such a narrow definition of religion, with some options for being exempt from state law, e.g., through self-insurance plans.  Such options are not available under the HHS mandate.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church fought these narrow definitions of religion in the states without success.  Why should it simply acquiesce when they are imposed by the federal government? The unacceptable and arbitrary shifting of an unjustifiable federal mandate from one group of citizens to another.  In an attempt to forge a compromise the Obama administration first of all created a new category of citizens – those who did not enjoy the HHS religious exemption because they were not really “religious”, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, but who still had religious objections.  According to the “compromise”, the proposal to be considered is that they would not have to provide insurance to cover the costs of the contraceptives, mutilations and abortifacient drugs and devices – but now the insurance companies themselves would have to provide them at their cost.  Of course everyone understands that insurance companies would be certain to recover their costs through the premiums charged to the (non-exempt, but now indulged) organization that has religious and moral scruples about providing these drugs and devices.  Also, no provision was made for many religious organizations who are self-insured.  How are they to avoid the coercive measures accompanying the mandate, such as the heavy fines. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others have insisted, this mandate is a violation of the First Amendment and must be rescinded.  It is also unnecessary, harmful and in violation of human dignity. Those who have embraced the mandate have ignored the constitutional questions it raises in favor of secondary issues such as women’s access to contraception under the euphemistic and misguided term “women’s health”, or the perceived good of universal health care. The moral issues related to the latter two are significant and should be addressed. This issue, however, must not be allowed to be diluted by arguments about the morality of sterilization, abortifacient drugs and devices, and contraception. Every American should feel challenged by this egregious violation of constitutional freedom. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Christian Medical Association, The Southern Baptist Convention, some Jewish groups, the Catholic Medical Association, a group of highly regarded Catholic scholars, individual religious leaders, and many others have all decried the president’s mandate and the so-called “compromise” which leaves the mandate in place as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and potentially of the consciences of the citizens of the United States.  We are pleased to provide links to what we believe are some of the best commentaries on this wrong-headed policy of the Obama administration.

So What's all the Fuss About

Perhaps this might help in understanding what is going on.

Testimony of Most Reverend William E. Lori Bishop of Bridgeport on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of Representatives

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community, reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute?

Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

Thank you for your attention.

The Church Responds!

Diocese of Lansing Responds to HHS Mandate

These past days have seen a grave error on the part of the federal government, as well as a blessed response from Catholics all across this great state and nation.

By now, all men and women of faith know that the United States Department of Health and Human Services has declared that health benefit plans must include coverage for sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs.  This unconstitutional and unconscionable mandate is to take effect in stages during 2012 and 2013.


The Catholic Church in the United States will never comply with this mandate.  Told that the federal government has allowed a one-year grace period during which the Church can adjust itself to this mandate, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York responded that the Church does not need a year to determine whether it would comply.  He is right.  In offering this supposed mandate, the federal government misreads the Constitution of the United States.  It equally misreads the determination of Catholics.


This nation is built upon the three-legged stool of the First Amendment.  Our precious freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly underlie everything this nation is, and everything this nation has ever accomplished.  Religious liberty gives the freedom to preach the Truth.  And the truth is that pregnancy is not a disease.  Nor is the natural fertility of a woman a disease.


Through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Michigan Catholic Conference, we are exploring a number of options, including litigation and Congressional reform.  As these efforts move forward, Catholics should make clear to their elected officials the crucial importance of religious liberty, and they should pray daily for those who have the responsibility for making these decisions.

---

A Michigan Tradition!

Shortly after the meeting last Sunday, January 22nd, where the community overwhelmingly voted to hold our annual festival on September 15-16, 2012, rather than in June, and where they also overwhelmingly voted to have a beer tent, someone mentioned Fiesta Texas which is a week long Spring celebration in San Antonio, Texas.  I remember it from my graduate days in San Antonio.  It made me think:  perhaps we should change the title of our Fiesta to Fiesta Michigan from its traditional title Fiesta Mexicana.  After reading feedback on facebook, and after giving further thought to the matter, I was led to believe that the title should remain Fiesta Mexicana, but I thought, perhaps we can add the subtitle:  An American Tradition, so thus it would read, Fiesta Mexicana, An American Tradition.  But then I thought, it isn't so much an American tradition as in the entire United States as it is a Michigan Tradition.  This led me to this thought, perhaps the subtitle should be:  A Michigan Tradition for 50 years.  Thus is would read:

Fiesta Mexicana

A Michigan Tradition for 50 years

I am not sure if it has been 50 years or if it has been more, I will find out and make the correction, but in any case, adding the subtitle would make the indirect point that this Fiesta has been put on over the years by Americans of Mexican descent.  That is, the people who have planned and executed this Fiesta have been more often than not American born, educated in American schools, many of whom have fought in foreign wars and worn the American flag proudly on their uniforms.  That is, though we are proud of our Mexican Heritage, as we should be, we are first and foremost proud Americans.  This is the point I wanted to convey in my original thought of changing it to Fiesta Michigan.  Adding A Michigan Tradition for 50 years seems to help in making that point.  How we design the posters and so on can also help in making that point.  For example, one could proudly display the American and Mexican flag somewhere in the poster.  In any case, this last title is not changing the traditional title, simply adding to it.  I hope you like it.        

We Must all Dream!

excerpt from Dr. Kind speech, Wash. D.C. Jan 17, 2011

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"