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

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...