Earlier this month, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Little Sisters and other religious entities seeking relief from having to facilitate contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance.

Churches and other institutions that primarily employ and serve members of the churches are exempt, but the Little Sisters didn't fall within this category, the court ruled.

The Little Sisters objected to having to file a form with federal authorities, under an "accommodation", that triggered a requirement for insurance companies to pay for the contraceptive coverage.

Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial of the order, said the Little Sisters were being asked to choose between adhering to their Catholic faith and continuing to pursue their religious mission of serving the elderly poor.

The order faces heavy fines if it doesn't comply with the mandate.

Continue reading

The Tenth Circuit Court ruled that the Little Sisters are not an exempt religious institution because they are not directly affiliated with any particular house of worship.

The court said that the Obama administration has provided sufficient accommodation for non-profit organisations—such as the Little Sisters—that have moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance plans.

Under the latest plan, the Little Sisters would be required to provide the federal government with a formal declaration that they object to the contraceptive mandate.

By filing that form, they would trigger government action requiring their insurer to pay for contraceptive coverage.

Continue reading

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that two businesses have protection on religious grounds against a Government mandate requiring coverage of contraceptive services in employee health plans.

The contraception mandate is included in law as part of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court cited the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which aims at preventing legislation that infringes on a person's free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court's five conservative Catholic justices outvoted their four liberal counterparts.

All three women justices on the Supreme Court voted with the minority.

The decision only applies to "closely held" corporations, such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, which were plaintiffs in the case.

Such companies have 50 per cent of their shares owned by five or fewer individuals.

Around 90 per cent of all American businesses qualify as closely-held corporations.

The Supreme Court ruling also insisted that its decision only applied to the issue of contraception.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the Government could find another way for funding contraceptive services for employees in closely held corporations.

But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Ruth Ginsburg said it would cause "havoc" and invite Christian businesses to mount a flurry of challenges to other laws on religious grounds.

The healthcare mandate provides some exemptions for non-profit groups.

But many such groups, including several Catholic dioceses and institutions, claim they do not do go far enough.

At least three dozen cases are still pending across the US challenging the application of the mandate.

The President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, said the Supreme Court did not decide whether the extent of exemptions for non-profit groups also violates the RFRA.

But he praised the Supreme Court ruling as recognising "that Americans continue to follow their faith when they run a family business".

Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain which has 25,000 employees, is run by a Christian family, but it only objects to contraceptives that are abortifacient.

Sources

• National Catholic Reporter (decision)
• National Catholic Reporter (bishop reaction)
• The Telegraph
• Image: ABC News

One of the contested policy issues is Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). Many of the US Catholic Bishops have been critical of this law on the ground that it might contribute to even more abortions in the US.

The Catholic religious orders which conduct health facilities are broadly supportive of the law because it would extend basic healthcare to millions of Americans otherwise deprived a basic right. The US Supreme Court is yet to determine the constitutionality of the law.

On 15 February 2012, the US Administration published draft regulations as a follow-up to the ACA. The legislative regime mandates three actions: each person must take out insurance; each employer must provide health cover; and every health plan must include preventive health measures including access to contraception, sterilisation and abortifacients.

Preventive health measures are mandated so as to reduce long term the overall costs of health care. Religious employers who have religious objections to such preventive health measures would be exempt.

On 14 March, the Administrative Committee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared the exemption for religious employers was too restrictive in part because it would apply only to employers who hired and served those primarily of their own faith. But what about Church institutions responding to the gospel imperative to provide health, education or welfare to persons of all faiths and none, employing persons of all faiths and none?

The bishops said, 'We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours.'

Feeling the heat from the bishops, the Obama Administration a week later issued 'a request for comments in advance of proposed rulemaking on the potential means of accommodating such organisations while ensuring contraceptive coverage for plan participants and beneficiaries covered under their plans (or, in the case of student health insurance plans, student enrollees and their dependents) without cost sharing'. Continue reading

Sources

• Fr Frank Brennan in Eureka Street
• Image: Homepage Daily