Skip to main content

The bishops, Hobby Lobby, and the contraceptive mandate

Yesterday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement about the latest HHS contraceptive mandate rules. While they are still opposed to what they see as a grave threat to religious liberty, the overall tone of the statement is measured, and they waited one week to officially respond while they considered the new rules.

In the post-2008 world of hyper-partisanship and hyperbole, I think we are entitled to label that a kind of progress.

The bishops still find inadequate the Obama Administration's attempts to create a wall between religiously-affiliated employers and the provision of free birth control to their employees. I think that the firewall is in fact adequate and consistent with norms in American political culture and the current and past relationship of the Catholic Church with the U.S. government and the flow of taxpayer money to the Church (see my prior posts on the subject).

For that reason, I don't think that the Church is going to win the battle of public opinion over the firewalls. They may continue to preach to the converted-- pro-life Catholics and evangelical Protestants who buy into the idea that there is a 'war on Christianity'-- but I don't think they are going to move the meter with mainstream American voters.

Regardless of whether the bishops have it right or not on the firewalls, because of their continuing dissatisfaction, the focus of their opposition is going to shift to the criteria for being exempt from the contraceptive mandate altogether, and/or qualifying for the 'accommodation' that the firewall provides.

The contraceptive mandate rules, as written, divide all employers into three camps:
  1. Religious employers, like churches. They are exempt from the mandate completely.
  2. Non-profit organizations that are affiliated with a particular church or religion, like Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities. If an organization is in this camp, they are entitled to the 'accommodation' of having a third party provide contraceptive services. 
  3. All other employers, including for-profit organizations and organizations that have a secular mission but are owned and/or operated by people of faith. A company like Hobby Lobby, which is challenging the contraceptive mandate in court, falls into this camp. These employers do not receive any sort of accommodation. 

The main question the Obama Administration will need to answer in the coming weeks is why Hobby Lobby and other secular businesses with religious owners are not entitled to firewall protection. Theirs is the only situation I can see causing mainstream Americans discomfort.

Links:

Article in Politico (February 7, 2013): Bishops reject contraception rule change

Statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (February 7, 2013): HHS Proposal Falls Short In Meeting Church Concerns; Bishops Look Forward To Addressing Issues With Administration

Web site for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is assisting Hobby Lobby with their lawsuit against the HHS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The irony of the inquiry into Dr. Halappanavar's death

The Associated Press (via  The Washington Post ) reports that the composition of the panel that is investigating Dr. Savita Halappanavar's death in Ireland has changed: Prime Minister Enda Kenny told lawmakers he hoped the move — barely 24 hours after Ireland unveiled the seven-member panel — would allow the woman’s widower to support the probe into why Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian dentist, died Oct. 28 while hospitalized in Galway.   Kenny’s U-turn came hours after her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said he would refuse to talk to the investigators and would not consent to their viewing his wife’s medical records because three of the Galway hospital’s senior doctors had been appointed as investigators. Kenny said that the three doctors would be replaced by other officials “who have no connection at all with University Hospital Galway. In that sense the investigation will be completely and utterly independent.”   This makes sense. Why conduct an inquiry at all

Breast-feeding as an abortifacient?

I came across this citation while reading a William  Saletan column, which, if I can decipher the jargon, indicates that ovulation may still occur during the postpartum breast-feeding stage. Does this suggest that, during this stage, a woman may have a fertilized egg that does not implant due to breast-feeding? This would place breast-feeding as an abortifacient practice in line with other methods of contraceptive unacceptable to pro-lifers. Saletan's earlier column does a nice job of capturing the scientific uncertainty over what happens with eggs and implantation with emergency contraception (like Plan B).