You may not have heard about the latest revision to ObamaCare’s controversial Birth-Control Mandate, the rule that spawned the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case. The announcement of this latest policy change was made on a Friday afternoon, thereby avoiding the bulk of what would have been unwanted media attention.
This is a touchy subject for the White House because the Administration lost in the Hobby Lobby decision. This means closely held corporations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraception that could work by causing an abortion are exempt from providing such coverage. The ruling bodes well for the many religious non-profit organizations suing the government for that same exemption from ObamaCare rules.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is refusing to bow to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby. It’s digging in its heels by announcing a so-called “accommodation” that does nothing to accommodate the religious liberty of religious charities, like schools and hospitals.
This is HHS’s eighth revision to its birth control coverage mandate.
Revision Number Seven stated that a religious non-profit seeking an exemption from this mandate must file a form with its insurance company stating its objection to providing this coverage. The latest revision, number eight, requires instead that the religious organization write a letter to the government stating those objections. Jeff Mateer, General Counsel at Liberty Institute, which is handling cases for several religious non-profits, says this is a “distinction without a difference.”
Revision Number Seven did not satisfy most of the religious charities objecting to the contraceptive mandate because filing a form with their insurance company would serve as a trigger for the insurance company to supply the contraception. The religious charity would still be involved in the stream of events that results in supplying free, sometimes abortion-inducing contraception. That violates basic Christian orthodoxy.
Same with Revision Number Eight. The Catholic Church argued that this step is not an accommodation to their faith because it still involves religious groups in a process that results in covering abortifacient drugs.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says the changed rule “still burdens our religious freedom.” His organization has a pending lawsuit against the mandate. Father Pavone says, “If people want these drugs and government wants to provide them, then the government will have to find a way to connect them without our help. Our religion requires no less.”
Russell Moore from the Southern Baptists’ public policy arm says, “What we see here is another revised attempt to settle issues of religious conscience with accounting maneuvers.”
Woven into this latest accommodation is wording that would require for profit companies, even closely held ones like Hobby Lobby, to file their objections with the government. Wait a minute – the Supreme Court already ruled on that.
We should not be surprised at this. For progressive government to grow and thrive, it must stamp out religious liberty.