| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
May 30, 2012
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Access Past Issues of the eNews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
|
43 Catholic Entities Sue Over the Contraceptives Mandate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is a highly significant development, even if much of the news media chose to ignore or down play it: on May 21, 43 Catholic entities filed lawsuits against the federal government's contraceptives mandate. There were 12 separate lawsuits, each filed in a different federal court--Washington DC, New York state, two courts in Pennsylvania, two courts in Texas, an Ohio court, a Mississippi court, two places in Indiana, an Illinois court, and a court in Missouri. Plaintiffs include several dioceses, universities, schools, Catholic Charities groups, Catholic health organizations. Why "only" 43 Catholic groups in "only" a dozen courts? The Catholic News Agency reports: "individuals involved in the strategy discussions behind the legal action explained that the initiative did not intend to have each diocese file a suit. Rather, certain dioceses were chosen to represent a wide cross-section of the concerns and interests voiced by all the dioceses in the country." Why sue now, after the administration issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on various designs for a religious "accommodation" for all the many faith-based service organizations that don't fit the narrow exemption now written into federal regulations? Here's what the President of the University of Notre Dame said: "the process laid out in this announcement will last months, making it impossible for us to plan for and implement any changes to our health plans by the government-mandated deadlines." For it can take more than 8 months of planning, assessment, and implementation for the University to make even relatively minor changes to its employee or student health plans, Notre Dame's lawsuit says. What about the alleged opposition from progressive Catholic leaders such as Bishop Stephen E. Blaire (Stockton, California) to the lawsuits? Catholic News Agency reports, "Bishop Blaire said that his comments have been misunderstood. He stressed his full support for his brother bishops in their efforts to fight the mandate and protect religious freedom." Notable quotations:Michael Sean Winters: "The central objection Notre Dame puts forward is that the Administration employs an unconstitutional standard in deciding what kinds of religious organizations are exempt from the new mandate and what kinds are not. This has been the central objection of many of us since the President's January announcement, especially those of us who tend to lean to the left and care deeply about the Church's social justice ministries. We reject - how can we not? - the distinction between a house of worship, which is exempt, and a religious charity, hospital or university, which are not exempt because, as Catholics, we believe that caring for the poor, healing the afflicted, and pursuing faith and reason together, are as essential to our Catholic identity as is our Sunday worship. The president's subsequent 'accommodations' have left that distinction in place for reasons no one seems to understand. "Notre Dame objects to this distinction between houses of worship and religious ministries not only because we Catholics see them as integrally linked. The lawsuit argues, persuasively, that in our constitutional framework, the government will necessarily find itself excessively entangled with religion in trying to determine which religious institution falls into which category. Franciscan University at Steubenville enrolls mostly Catholics. Are they exempt? Notre Dame enrolls many non-Catholics. Are they not exempt? Who decides? What percentage of co-religionists is necessary to meet the administration's demand that an exempt institution 'primarily' serve and employ co-religionists? And, who in the administration gets to decide whether a given institution has as its central mission the 'inculcation' of religious values? Is there a criteria for this?" --Michael Sean Winters, " The Lawsuits & the Tantrums," National Catholic Reporter, May 22. Douglas Kmiec: "Unwittingly, perhaps, the president has allowed his appointees to drift into the secular lane and stay there. Advised of the church's opposition to the contraceptive mandate and invited by the very faith leaders who helped him secure election that the religious exemption he was approving turns the Gospel of Matthew inside-out, his voice calling for dialogue and common ground was not to be heard. Only when the bishops demonstrated that the narrowness of his exemption substantially burdens the doctrinal posture of the church and entangles itself with the very definition of religion was there some inkling of presidential realization that the HHS policy was the antithesis of Christian faith and its mandate for a ministry of service. "The noise of opposition could not be hidden from the president any longer, and the president reacted by shifting the obligation of the mandate away from employers to insurers. A good start, followed by nothing -- no follow-through, and in particular, with respect to his honorary alma mater, no help whatsoever, since religious entities that self-insure, like Notre Dame, would still be coerced to abandon its religious teaching." -- Douglas Kmiec, " Notre Dame's swing at Obama is, unfortunately, deserved," National Catholic Reporter, May 22.
|
Becket Fund Keeps Full Record of Contraceptives Mandate Lawsuits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is providing a handy overview of all of the cases filed against the contraceptives mandate--at the moment, " 55 plaintiffs, 23 cases, one unconstitutional mandate." Go to HHS Mandate Information Central for information on each of the cases and for related materials. |
|
Arizona Adopts Conscience Protections for Professionals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No one seeking the services of a therapist or lawyer should be turned away due to invidious discrimination. On the other hand, these and other professionals ought to be free to exercise their best professional judgment--which might mean deciding that they can't in good conscience counsel a particular couple or put their talents to the service of some goal of this or that potential client. Discrimination is wrong and yet suppressing the ability of professionals to be ethical, in their well-considered judgment, is also wrong.
In this setting, the recent signing by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of SB 1365 is worth noticing. The new law protects professionals against loss of a professional or occupational license for refusing to provide a service that violates his or her religious convictions. Here's the main part of the new law:
A. GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT DENY, REVOKE OR SUSPEND A PERSON'S PROFESSIONAL OR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, CERTIFICATE OR REGISTRATION FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING AND THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
1. DECLINING TO PROVIDE OR PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING ANY SERVICE THAT VIOLATES THE PERSON'S SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS EXCEPT PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF A PEACE OFFICER.
2. REFUSING TO AFFIRM A STATEMENT OR OATH THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE PERSON'S SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
3. EXPRESSING SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN ANY CONTEXT, INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT AS LONG AS THE SERVICES PROVIDED OTHERWISE MEET THE CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE OR PRACTICE FOR THE PROFESSION.
4. PROVIDING FAITH-BASED SERVICES THAT OTHERWISE MEET THE CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE OR PRACTICE FOR THE PROFESSION.
5. MAKING BUSINESS RELATED DECISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SUCH AS:
(a) EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
(b) CLIENT SELECTION DECISIONS.
(c) FINANCIAL DECISIONS.
Faith-based service organizations that employ professionals need to be able to recruit and retain people who are free to serve in a faith-shaped way--even if others in our society follow other convictions. The more our federal, state, and local governments--and professional associations--adopt sweeping rules mandating action that conflicts with important religious norms, the more it is essential that our governments adopt protective language like this Arizona law.
|
From Arizona: A Better Definition of "Religious Employer"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
House Bill 2625, signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on May 11, among other things amends the state's definition of "religious employer" for the purposes of the state's own contraceptives mandate. That mandate already included an exemption for religious employers, but it was a narrow exemption, nearly the same as the narrow exemption that has been written into the federal contraceptives regulations. Thanks to the changes made by HB 2625, an exempt "religiously affiliated employer" in Arizona is now defined in two ways:
1. (similar to the federal definition) the employer primarily employs and serves people of the same faith as the employer, and the organization is categorized by the IRS as a church;
2. (the added definition) the employer is "an entity whose articles of incorporation clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles."
The federal government should consider a revised definition of "religious employer" like this, rather than sticking to its plan to create a new definition of "religious organization" next to its narrow definition of "religious employer," while giving entities in that new category--charities, schools, hospitals--only an "accommodation," not an exemption from the mandate. The two-class treatment of religious organizations should be ditched in favor of a broad exemption for all religious organizations, letting them exercise their best judgment about employee benefits in this very sensitive area.
|
|
IRFA Resource on the Contraceptives Mandate for Faith-Based Service Organizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The federal mandate that all health insurance plans must cover all contraceptives, including drugs considered by some to induce abortions, unless specifically exempted or otherwise released from the obligation, presents an overt challenge to many faith-based service groups. The mandate applies to plans and plan years that begin on August 1, 2012, or later. Churches are exempt but not faith-based service organizations. Some service organizations are temporarily protected if they violate the mandate.
What should organizations do if they have religious objections to some or all contraceptive drugs and procedures? Is their particular organization exempt? What about the administration's promise of a special religious "accommodation" for non-exempt faith-based organizations? What options are available to speak out about religious freedom concerns?
For a detailed look at the mandate and the institutional religious freedom issues, consult IRFA's new memo written specifically for faith-based service organizations. It includes action suggestions for leaders facing a decision about buying or renewing health insurance, suggestions for commenting on the administration's promised "accommodations," and a sign-on letter to the HHS Secretary which staff and board members can join (the deadline to sign onto the letter has been extended to June 8).
Find the memo here as an electronic document that you can easily forward to others.
Find the memo here as a pdf document that you can download.
|
|
|
|
Notable Quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Like religion itself, religious freedom has a personal, individual dimension, but it also has a communitarian, public dimension. Since human beings think, act and communicate through their relationships with others, this freedom is expressed through concrete actions, whether individual or collective, both in religious communities and in society at large. Believers must therefore be allowed to play their part in formulating public policy and in contributing to society as a way of living their faith in daily practice. When this right is truly acknowledged, religious communities and institutions can operate freely for the betterment of society through initiatives in the social, charitable, health care, and educational sectors, which benefit all citizens, especially the poorest and most marginalized. Furthermore, religious freedom entails the right of religious communities to set the qualifications judged necessary for those running their own institutions."
--Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pastoral Letter on Freedom of Conscience and Religion (April 2012). |
| IRFA Needs You!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep the eNews for Faith-Based Organizations and IRFA afloat! IRFA depends in large part on donations from people like you, who care about faith-based services and about religious freedom. Will you come to the aid of IRFA in this season of giving? Thank you very much. |
| Join IRFA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith-based organizations and associations of faith-based organizations can now support IRFA and institutional religious freedom by signing up for an annual membership. Organizations and individuals engaged in supportive work (leading, consulting with, or defending faith-based organizations, for example) can join as associate members.
For details and forms, go to: http://irfalliance.org/membership.html
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For further information:
e-mail: info@IRFAlliance.org
website: www.IRFAlliance.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
| What is IRFA?
The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance works to safeguard the religious identity, faith-based standards and practices, and faith-shaped services of faith-based organizations across the range of service sectors and religions, enabling them to make their distinctive and best contributions to the common good.
|
|
|
|
