Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action. This local lawsuit is one of 12 actions filed nationwide today, on behalf of 43 separate Catholic institutions around the country.
The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need. Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption. Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.
“For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice—schools, hospitals, and social service organizations—are not ‘religious enough,’” said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. “Catholic institutions of the Archdiocese of Washington, including its schools and social service ministries, do not qualify as religious and the mandate forces them to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong,” Cardinal Wuerl said.
The current law states that a Catholic institution is exempt from the mandate only if the federal government determines that the inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization and that it mainly serves and employs Catholics. So, the mandate gives special power to a federal government official to regulate and investigate religious organizations and their ministries. The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that this government interference with the free exercise of religion violates the First Amendment.
“There is no way out of the dilemma the mandate forces upon us. Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and social service ministries employ and serve millions of people in this country and do so without regard to their religious beliefs. Under the government’s new rules, religious organizations will face an impossible choice,” said Jane Belford, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Washington. “Serving our neighbor is part of our baptismal calling. We do what we do because we are Catholic, not because those we serve are. We have always asked: Are you hungry? Are you sick? Now, we will be forced to also ask: Are you Catholic?” said Mrs. Belford. “This is wrong. Our mission is to serve the needs of our neighbors regardless of their faith or their beliefs.”
Through the legal action filed today, the archdiocese aims to defend through judicial means the fundamental human right to religious freedom. The plaintiffs are seeking a solution supported by the First Amendment and federal law, which permits all religious organizations, not just houses of worship, to follow their religious convictions and continue to serve all who are in need.
For more information, visit www.preservereligiousfreedom.org.
# # #
United States Congress (not Obama) rejected the notion that a company can pick and choose what coverage to exclude from its medical plan when it voted down the Blunt Amendment. Republican Lisa Murkowski originally voted for the amendment but then had a major change of heart after hearing from her constituents. You can read about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/lisa-murkowski-blunt-amendment_n_1323427.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/
Did you read the link to FactCheck.org ???
"This author of this piece, Brie Hall, is a communications manager for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. That should be posted somewhere by Patch. She gets paid to do PR for the church. Patch should seek out alternative views and not present this as faux news." It appears that she is doing her job I guess? It looks like all the authors who use the "Local Voices" section do NOT identify who they are with and Patch does not either, nor does anybody offer an official counterpoint to any of them. For example Ben Cardin, just a picture of Ben and his name and his story......no identity given, no counterpoint offered. I suppose it's up to the Patch reader's to question them? Lastly........I don't think anybody is considering this "hard news". You may find this hard to believe, but there are some folks out there who are able to figure it out, but just in case they can't...........you're doing a fine job of "splaining" :)
http://rockville.patch.com/search/blog_posts If Patch is to be a respected as a journalistic endeavor it needs to fairly, accurately and consistently present information about its so-called "bloggers" and actively seek to present all sides of an issue. I certainly see Huff Po, your mothership, doing that. Why can't Patch? I also don't see how this posts in any way fit the definition of "blogger," according to your descriptions. They more fit the definition of propaganda that only serves the aims of the employer of the paid writer. "Blog On Patch Share what you know. Ask what you don't. Patch blogs give anyone from gardening enthusiasts to community leaders to local business owners the power to easily share ideas, expertise, questions, or even just a cool photo with the whole neighborhood...."
If one clicks on Brie Hall's name at the top of the page, one will arrive at a list of her blogs. To the left of that list, click on "Profile Home," and you'll get this: "About Brie"—"Communications Manager for the Office of Media and Public Relations of the Archdiocese of Washington" The identifications of bloggers are in their profile pages. -Laura L. Thornton, editor of Chevy Chase Patch
This goes beyond the religious freedom issue. Employers should be free to provide whatever employee benefits they choose. Better yet, if the government did not subsidize employer-provided insurance coverage, employees would be free to choose whatever insurance coverage they want - without reference to the employer.
The postion of the Catholic Church is not established by men - but, rather, by men (and women) faithfully discerning God's will in the matter. If you want to speak about the "war on women", you should take a look at the effect of the drugs and plugs with which men would afflict women - all for the sake of making women readily available as sex objects. Married couples are not obligated to have as many children as physically possible. Using methods that are wholly approved by the Catholic Church, a married couple can successfully limit the number of children, if there is a seriopus reason for doing so.
Religous freedom does not mean that everything we want - and is acceptable to our religion - should be provided to us free of charge.
On the contrary, if the employee forces (by dint of federal regulation) the employer to pay for her contraception coverage, she is imposing her beliefs on the employer who may have religious objections to the practice. But I agree, religious freedom is not something that is unique to established religious organizations. Individuals - such as owners of a private business which has no connection to any organized religious activity - should have the freedom to practice their business in accord with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion = my freedom from my employer's religion. I should have the same choices as everyone else regardless of my employer's religion. End of story.