10 most cited arguments in favor of the hhs mandate

8/2/2019 10 Most Cited Arguments in Favor of the HHS Mandate

1/6

10 Most Cited Arguments in Favor of the HHS Mandate

Published Monday, March 5, 2012 A.D. | By Michael Denton

[ed note: This is a helpful write-up of some brief arguments against the HHS mandate that a

friend of mine wrote up. She allowed me to share it with you, so enjoy!]

I am a Catholic, unmarried, left-leaning centrist, female, 20-something, law student. Not only doesthis mean that I enjoy those oft-avoided subjects of religion and politics, it also means that nomatter what the topic is, I am sure to be able to point you to an entire circle of my friends that willargue with me to the death. Very enthusiastically, in fact.

The Obama/HHS Mandate is the perfect example. Within my various circles, and across the nation,this mandate has simultaneously sparked debate about religious beliefs, Constitutional freedom,political party divides, and the issue of womens rights, to name a few. These discussions result inrecurring arguments made in support of the mandate which have a tendency to surface regardless

of which issue was the catalyst of that particular debate. And so, in light of that fact, I present toyou the un-official list of the ten most cited arguments made in support of the mandate, and whyevery one of them fails.

10. The Church is just opposed to universal healthcare!

Ive got news for you: the Catholic Church actively advocates for universal health care. In fact, theChurch teaches that health care is a right, not merely a privilege, as articulated by Pope John XXIIIinPacem in Terris (Peace on Earth) in 1963. At an international Papal conference on health care in2010, Pope Benedict XVI stated that it is the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee accessto health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to

pay. Want more evidence? Look no further than the Catholic Catechism (n. 2288), or the U. S.Bishops pastoral letter, Economic Justice for All (1986) (nn. 86, 90, 103, 191, 212, 230, 247,and 286.) The examples are countless, and the Churchs official teaching is clear. The issue is notthat the Obama administration seeks to provide access to healthcare, the issue is that it wants tocompel religiously-affiliated employers to provide health care coverage that runs counter to coredoctrinal beliefs.

9. Contraception is used for purposes other than avoiding pregnancy, and sterilizing

procedure are sometimes necessary to treat medical illness; therefore the Church has no

reason to refuse to provide health care that includes contraception and sterilization for those

purposes!

It is true that the birth control pill can serve the secondary purpose of treating the symptoms ofpoly cystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, and even moderate to severe acne. However, there aremany medical alternatives to the pill. The Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of HumanReproduction specializes in such alternative treatments. The Church is happy to provide healthcare coverage for these. As for sterilization, suppose a woman had a hysterectomy to remove acancerous uterus. The intention of the operation was to remove the cancer, not to sterilize her. Thesterilization was an unfortunate but intended consequence. As Pope Paul VI said in Humanae
http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/03/05/10-most-cited-arguments-in-favor-of-the-hhs-mandate/http://the-american-catholic.com/author/michael-denton/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htmhttp://the-american-catholic.com/author/michael-denton/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htmhttp://the-american-catholic.com/2012/03/05/10-most-cited-arguments-in-favor-of-the-hhs-mandate/


2/6

Vitae, The Church does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means trulynecessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may beforeseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directlywilled.

Unfortunately, the HHS Mandate does not allow religiously affiliated businesses and organizationsto provide these procedures only in these limited circumstances of medical necessity. If it did, thisconversation might be different. In fact, Catholic universities that exist in states where coverage ismandatory, such as the Franciscan University of Steubenville, University of Dallas, and Universityof Notre Dame, provide that coverage only when medically necessary. The HHS mandate makesno exception to allow for the Church to freely exercise its religious beliefs by making thisdistinction.

8. This is more of a category of arguments that all basically say the same thing: the Church is

trying to trump the Constitution. Most often phrased:

You Catholics are trying to tear down the wall between church and state again! THAT is

the Constitutional violation we should be concerned about.

-OR-

The Church is trying to force its belief system on everyone in the US and effectively

establish Catholicism as the religion of the nation. So much for Congress shall make no law

respecting the establishment of religion

First of all, lets clarify something. The phrase separation of church and state does not exist inthe Constitution or in any of the nations founding documents. Rather it originated in a letter fromThomas Jefferson in response to the Danbury Baptist Association, which was concerned about theimplications of the 1st Amendment on religious freedom. Reassuring the Baptist Association,Jefferson explained that the 1st Amendment effectuated a separation between church and state inorder to protect religious groups from interference by the government. This foundational purposeof the Religion Clauses of the Constitution continues to be reaffirmed by the courts. In fact, theSupreme Court unanimously echoed this respect for religious autonomy less than a month agoinHosanna-Tabor v. E.E.O.C.. In their concurring opinion, Justices Alito and Kagan noted that[t]o safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect aprivate sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their

own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies independence from secular control ormanipulationin short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters ofchurch government as well as those of faith and doctrine.

With that said, the Church is not seeking to abolish this separation of church and state. In fact, inan essay written inFirst Things in 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI, he recognized the importance ofthis dual autonomy. He notes that the United States, formed on the basis of free churches, adoptsa separation between church and state and hails this as being what the early church had in mind.


3/6

The Church is not seeking to eliminate the rights granted by the 1st Amendment or somehowattempting to override the Constitution and establish Catholicism as some sort of national religion.Far from it. The Church simply opposes the governments attempt to cross that line by forcing theChurch to chose between obeying the law and violating her conscious. The 1st Amendmentprevents the government from forcing citizens to make this choice. Plain and simple.

7. Universal, free access to birth control will mean fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus

fewer abortions. The Church should be happy!

First, birth control pills are potentially abortive in-and-of themselves because one function ofseveral varieties of the Pill is to thin and shrivel the lining of the uterus so that it is unable or lessable to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg. Because life begins at conception,pills that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall in effect cause the abortion ofthat life.

But, secondly, even if we discount the unknowable number of lives lost in that manner, there is

absolutely no evidence to support the claim that an increase in the use of birth control decreases thefrequency of abortions. In fact, studies show just the opposite.

58% of all abortion patients were using contraception during the month when they becamepregnant. Only 11% of abortion patients have never used a method of contraception. Moreover,studies have shown that once contraception is more widely available, abortion rates may actuallyrise. In Maryland, for example, the first state to enact a contraceptive mandate, the number ofabortions rose by 1,226 the year after the mandate took effect. This holds true in several othercountries as well. A study in Spain analyzed data from 1997-2007. During the study period theoverall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The elective abortion rateincreased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

By the way, this isnt some kind of secret. Several professionals who promote and administerabortion freely acknowledge this link. As merely one example, take these statements made byMalcom Potts, former director of Planned Parenthood of England:

1. As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortionrate Cambridge Evening News, 7 February 1973

2. those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to inducedabortionAbortion p. 491.

3. No society has controlled its fertilitywithout recourse to a significant number ofabortions. Fertility Rights, The Guardian, 25 April 1979

So in reality, there is a link between the use of contraception and the abortion rate. When the firstincreases, so does the latter.

6. The government regulates religion all the time, such as when it outlaws religious

practices such as ___________. (polygamy, ceremonial human sacrifice, honor killings, etc.)

This is the same thing!


4/6

Actually, the government does not regulate religion all the time. It actually continuously upholdsreligious autonomy. In order for the federal government to step in, there is an extremely highstandard that must be met: the infringement on the religion must serve a compelling governmentinterest and must implement a means that is least restrictive to religious freedom in order toachieve that interest. So looking at the examples in the argument, the Constitution guarantees

American citizens the right to life itself. That easily explains how the government can prohibithuman sacrifice and honor killings. As for polygamous communities, the courts have recognizedindisputable links between polygamous communities and substantial, repeated harms to womenand children such as incest, statutory rape and sexual assault. These harms are so egregious that thegovernment is permitted to step in to prevent these physical harms to human life.

5. If Obama amends the mandate to provide a religious exemption, that will mean that an

employer who is a Jehovahs Witness could refuse to provide health care coverage for life-

saving blood transfusions because doing so would run counter to his religious beliefs. That is

absurd.

Two points. First, blood-transfusions and contraception are not interchangeable. The differencehere is that a blood-transfusion is a life-saving procedure, while contraception is not. The SupremeCourt has continually upheld the right of the government to step in when it is necessary to preservelife (see #2 below). Obviously, contraception does not fall within this category. Not only doescontraception fail to qualify as life-saving, it is an elective intervention that interferes with thefunctioning of healthy womens reproductive systems. Additionally, contraceptives have numerousside-effects and risks of serious complications. The side-effects of the pill include headaches,depression, decreased libido and weight gain, and serious documented complications such as heartattacks, cervical cancer and blood clots. An ongoing a class-action lawsuit against threepharmaceutical companies alleges that a form of the pill has caused death, strokes and life-threatening blood clots.

Second, even if the courts were to say blood-transfusions and contraception were equitable, no oneis talking about prohibiting/outlawing these things. The Church advocates for areligious exemption from the mandate for religiously-affiliated employers. When applying for jobs,we weigh several factors to determine which job we want. What are the hours? What is the salary?Where is the job located? What does the benefits package look like? No one is being forced towork for a religiously-affiliated employer. We, as American citizens, have every right to either (1)work for a religiously-affiliated business, and supplement our insurance if we so choose, or (2)chose to work for an employer that provides as comprehensive of a health care plan as we desire.

4. The controversy over the HHS Mandate is about contraception, not religious freedom.

The Bishops have gathered in very vocal resistance to this mandate, and in doing so brought tolight the Churchs opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortifaceints in order toexplain how this mandate would violate the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. So whilethe issue of contraception itself remains at center of the headlines, the issue really is religiousfreedom. This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited [or] supported by thegovernmentIt is not a matter of repackaging or framing this as a religious freedom dispute. It


5/6

is a matter of acknowledging the basic fact that government is forcing religious people and groupsto do something that violates their consciences, (Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, CT).

In fact, that this truly is an issue of religious freedom is evidenced by the fact that many many non-catholic, pro-contraception groups and individuals have spoken out against this mandate because

of the risk it poses to religious freedom across the board. This list includes, amongothers, Democrats,a self-defined conservative with libertarian leanings,orthodoxJews, Lutherans, Baptists,evangelical Protestants,Anglicans, andnondenominationalorganizations.

3. Religiously-affiliated businesses receive millions of dollars in Federal funding,

therefore the government has every right to impose regulations on those businesses. If the

Church doesnt want to be regulated, it should stay out of the business-sector altogether.

Bishop Lori responded to this argument best in saying: We dont get a handout. We have acontract for services, and we deliver them. We bring the generosity of the Catholic people, and

we bring volunteers. When you contract with the Church, you get a bang for your buck. Ifreligious organizations, particularly Catholic organizations, were forced to shut down due toregulations such as the HHS mandate, this country would be astounded by the results. The CatholicChurch educates 2.6 million students every day, at a cost of $10 billion a year to parents andparishes. If there were no Catholic schools, these same students would have to be educated inpublic schools, which would cost $18 billion to American taxpayers. In secondary education alone,the Church has more than 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000students. In terms of health care, the Church has a non-profit hospital system comprising of 637hospitals which treat one in five patients in the United States every day. Every city and townbenefits from Catholic organizations. In Chicago alone, there are hundreds of Catholicorganizations that serve the needs of that city. One of those is Catholic Charities which provides

2.2 million free meals to the hungry and needy each year. That is 6,027 meals a day, in one city.Does anyone really have any desire to see what our nation (and our taxes) would look like withoutthese businesses and the services they provide?

2. The church is trying to interfere with womens rights!

As Cardinal Dolan has noted, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care forwomen. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care forwomen and their babies in the country. [I]n New York State,Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaidinsurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of serviceto women and children.

When right are granted to you by your governing nation, you expect them to provide it. Yourchildren have a right to an education, and thus the right to attend public school at no additionalcost. You do not march up to the main office at a private school and demand that they let yourchild in, free of charge, because they have a right to an education. Similarly, if you cannot afford toput food on your table, you have a right to ask the government to provide for you through welfare,but you dont have the right to walk into a restaurant and demand that they feed you. Thegovernment can and should provide access to health care for all citizens, but that requires actually
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290691/five-senate-democrats-take-issue-hhs-mandate-kathryn-jean-lopezhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-we-are-all-catholics-now/2012/02/19/gIQAZFYVOR_blog.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-we-are-all-catholics-now/2012/02/19/gIQAZFYVOR_blog.htmlhttp://advocacy.ou.org/2012/union-of-orthodox-jewish-congregations-critiques-administration-denial-of-expanded-exemption-for-religious-entities-liberties-in-health-insurance-plans-calls-on-congress-to-redress-through-legislat/#.T0GI9If-9mjhttp://advocacy.ou.org/2012/union-of-orthodox-jewish-congregations-critiques-administration-denial-of-expanded-exemption-for-religious-entities-liberties-in-health-insurance-plans-calls-on-congress-to-redress-through-legislat/#.T0GI9If-9mjhttp://advocacy.ou.org/2012/union-of-orthodox-jewish-congregations-critiques-administration-denial-of-expanded-exemption-for-religious-entities-liberties-in-health-insurance-plans-calls-on-congress-to-redress-through-legislat/#.T0GI9If-9mjhttp://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19635http://erlc.com/article/response-to-revised-contraceptive-mandate/http://www.nae.net/news/715-press-release-evangelicals-disappointed-with-white-house-decision-on-conscience-protectionhttp://www.nae.net/news/715-press-release-evangelicals-disappointed-with-white-house-decision-on-conscience-protectionhttp://www.anglicanchurch.net/?%2Fmain%2Fpage%2F366http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?%2Fmain%2Fpage%2F366http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?%2Fmain%2Fpage%2F366http://www.becketfund.org/ccu/http://www.becketfund.org/ccu/http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290691/five-senate-democrats-take-issue-hhs-mandate-kathryn-jean-lopezhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-we-are-all-catholics-now/2012/02/19/gIQAZFYVOR_blog.htmlhttp://advocacy.ou.org/2012/union-of-orthodox-jewish-congregations-critiques-administration-denial-of-expanded-exemption-for-religious-entities-liberties-in-health-insurance-plans-calls-on-congress-to-redress-through-legislat/#.T0GI9If-9mjhttp://advocacy.ou.org/2012/union-of-orthodox-jewish-congregations-critiques-administration-denial-of-expanded-exemption-for-religious-entities-liberties-in-health-insurance-plans-calls-on-congress-to-redress-through-legislat/#.T0GI9If-9mjhttp://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19635http://erlc.com/article/response-to-revised-contraceptive-mandate/http://www.nae.net/news/715-press-release-evangelicals-disappointed-with-white-house-decision-on-conscience-protectionhttp://www.anglicanchurch.net/?%2Fmain%2Fpage%2F366http://www.becketfund.org/ccu/http://www.becketfund.org/ccu/


6/6

providing it, not shifting the responsibility to private employers. The Obama Administration hasdecided that women employees have the right to health care coverage that provides contraception.The problem with the government forcing business-owners to provide that right to society is thatthe scope of governmental authority is limited by the rights and freedoms that protect individualbusiness owners. If the administration really wants to provide comprehensive, universal health

care, it needs to do so itself without involving private entities.

1. 98% of Catholics dont abide by this core doctrine of the Catholic faith; therefore, it

should not be entitled to First Amendment protection.

First and foremost, that statistic is absurd. Seriously, 98%? I am with Glenn Back on this one, Imean, when your poll looks like the results from a Saddam Hussein election, you know you haveproblems. Among other issues, the study that touts this statistic doesnt include: anyone who isnta Catholic woman between the ages of 14-44, anyone who is pregnant, anyone who gave birthrecently, anyone who hadnt had sex in the past three months, anyone trying to get pregnant or wasindifferent to getting pregnant, anyone having sex and trying to avoid pregnancy without

implementing a specific contraception method. It did, however, include self-identified Catholicswho listed their church attendance rate as less than once a month, or never. Actually, 2 in every 5of those polled fell into this category. But I digress.

Even if 98% of Catholics used contraception, that fact would have no bearing whatsoever on thefact that the doctrinal beliefs and teachings of the Catholic faith have never wavered on this issue,a fact that illustrates the strength and conviction of the Church. As one Evangelical Lutheran put it,That a Roman Pontiff would lead the opposition often painfully alone to contraception at theend of the twentieth century is no small irony. Perhaps the Catholic hierarchy model, reservingfinal decisions on matters of faith and morals to a bishop whom Catholics believe is the successorof Peter, has proved more resilient in the face of modernity than the Protestant reliance on

individual conscious and democratic church governance.

The Churchs beliefs are clear. Whether or not individuals choose to disobey the Churchsdirectives does not change the fact that the First Amendment stands tightly closed against anygovernmental regulation of religious beliefs. (Stated in the Supreme Courts 8-1Johnson v.Robisondecision.)

10 most cited arguments in favor of the hhs mandate

Documents