| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
July 24, 2012
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Access Past Issues of the eNews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
|
HHS's Pluralist Policy for Grants to Faith-Based Organizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The policy statement hasn't exactly been vigorously publicized, but you can find it on the HHS website if you look in the right place. " ACF Policy on Grants to Faith-Based Organizations" is the name and the statement was released on July 13th. ACF is the Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. The statement is probably related to the recent administrative and legal action shutting Catholic Migration and Refugee Services out of grants to provide aid to human trafficking victims because CMRS does not provide or refer for contraception and abortion services. The policy statement highlights the vital role of faith-based organizations in providing "critical human services" and in being first responders in times of crisis. Yet it notes that "some potential grantees may have religious objections to providing certain kinds of services, including referrals." How then can ACF continue its valued partnerships with faith-based organizations while ensuring that "the full range of legally permissible services" is made available to people who count on federally funded services? The statement sets out three ways that a faith-based organization can participate in providing federally funded services even if it refuses to provide certain services that are otherwise required to be provided: (1) The organization can serve as one of several subgrantees, as long as the grantee makes sure that all clients are able to access all services required by the grant. "Under this arrangement, as long as other subgrantees are readily available to provide clients with the objected-to services, a subgrantee may participate in the grant program while declining to provide services to which they have religious objection." (2) The organization can take part as one member of a consortium. "The consortium would allow for a division of responsibility consistent with each organization's principles." (3) The organization ("in some circumstances") could be the actual grantee and then, if a client needs a service to which the organization has a religious objection, it could notify the federal official in charge of the grant about the need; "[i]t would then be the federal agency's responsibility to follow through with the needed services, or, if appropriate, transfer the case to another provider." The statement adds that ACF is willing also to consider other approaches that simultaneously ensure that clients can access all services "while enabling qualified faith-based organizations to participate in the delivery of those services in a manner consistent with their principles." This is a noteworthy and very positive development. In our increasingly diverse society, government often cannot adequately respect the religious freedom of faith-based services if it imposes uniform requirements. Here the federal government has rightly decided on a different approach: allow organizations that, for religious reasons, do not provide every service to take part, as long as alternative ways can be created to ensure access to all legal services. The full range of services is still made available, but without losing the important participation of the faith-based providers. Ironically, although the government often justifies uniform requirements as necessary to guarantee access to services by everyone, some or even many of those the government is trying to protect may reject on religious grounds some of those services! For example, even as many patients desire access to abortions, many other patients desire their health care providers to be consistently pro-life. Arrangements that make government-funded, and also government-regulated, services more pluralistic are all to the good in our diverse society. One thing to watch for: officials adding unneeded requirements to grant programs, happy to advance progressive causes without blocking faith-based applicants, who can always take a subordinate place to a secular organization that is glad to guarantee the supply of whatever the government desires.
|
Health Care Ruling Undermines Charity Tax Benefits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is collateral damage, but none the less serious. Recall that in the US Supreme Court's big health care decision on June 28, Chief Justice John Roberts said that, although the Constitution's Commerce clause could not be used to justify the individual mandate, the requirement to buy insurance could be justified by Congress' power to tax, including using taxes to influence behavior. Using taxes to influence behavior includes conditioning tax benefits to influence behavior, and that might mean trouble ahead for charitable organizations.
Here's how it was put in a July 2 article by nonprofit experts Suzanne Garment and Leslie Lenkowsky:
"Although the analysis was directed toward Congress's taxation authority in regard to mandatory health insurance, the ideas articulated in the ruling should be sobering to nonprofits and foundations that rely heavily on their tax exemptions and on the tax breaks their donors receive for their contributions. The opinion by Chief Justice Roberts makes it clear that if lawmakers voted to impose restrictions on tax-deductibility or tax exemption, they would not face any constitutional obstacles." What restrictions might be imposed? Of course, governments at all levels these days are seeking ways to increase their revenues by cutting back on tax breaks, e.g., asking nonprofit universities to contribute to city finances even though they are exempt from property and other taxes. Even more worrisome are other possible conditions. Garment and Lenkowsky note debates by legislators about restricting what counts as charitable activity:
"Tax deductibility, [some] argue, should be exclusively available--or at least be far more generous--for contributions that benefit the poor or minorities. And tax exemptions, [some] say, should be limited to organizations that provide services government would otherwise be required to offer or to nonprofits that devote most of their resources to helping people in need."
So far these are just general discussions, but that's no reason for complacency. "Contributions that benefit the poor or minorities"--that could leave out art and music programs, but also religious missions and seminary education. And if tax exemptions are "limited to organizations that provide services government would otherwise be required to offer"--that might be interpreted to exclude any service with a religious emphasis, because government (chaplains aside) is prohibited from providing religious activities.
And there is a further danger, not mentioned by these authors: legislators and activists seizing on the Court's affirmation of Congress' power to use taxes to influence behavior in order to strike out at allegedly discriminatory nonprofit organizations. Law professors have argued, for example, that religious organizations insufficiently devoted to equality between the sexes should not receive tax-exempt status and, more generally, that any faith-based organization that "discriminates" in who it hires or who and how it serves should not be eligible for 501(c)(3) status. Given how readily many activists label as mere discrimination many of the religiously rooted practices of faith-based organizations, the Court's green light for congressional micro-tailoring of tax exemptions and tax deductibility should be seen as in reality a flashing danger signal.
H.T. Alliance for Charitable Reform.
|
|
Ecumenical Opposition to the HHS Contraceptives Mandate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gradually (some) people are noticing: the great opposition to the HHS contraceptives mandate isn't just a matter of opposition to birth control and it isn't just coming from Catholics.
Here's how the matter was put in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Wheaton College President Philip Ryken and Catholic University of America President John Garvey:
"On Wednesday, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the trustees of Wheaton College joined The Catholic University of America in filing a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services. They did so because the HHS mandate requiring the college to provide and subsidize insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs violates the conscience of the school and its members, and denies their First Amendment freedom of religion.
"When Catholic University began its own legal action on May 21, it asserted a moral and a constitutional right to practice its religion without government interference. Defending liberty is also deeply rooted in Wheaton's identity as a Christian liberal arts college, founded by abolitionists on the Illinois prairie at the outset of the Civil War. . . .
"Our institutions do not agree on all points about HHS's mandated services. The regulations require religious institutions (except churches) to guarantee coverage for all government-approved contraceptives. Wheaton College does not, as Catholics do, view all forms of artificial contraception as immoral. But the list of required services includes 'morning after' and 'week after' pills that claim the life of an unborn child within days of its conception. . . .
"Many Americans disagree with our shared belief in the immorality of abortion. That is their right. But there should be no dispute about a second point we hold in common: Religious schools like Wheaton College and Catholic University should have the freedom--guaranteed by the United States Constitution--to carry out our mission in a way that is consistent with our religious principles."
Wheaton College, located just west of Chicago, is not the only Protestant institution of higher education to sue the federal government over the contraceptives mandate. Wheaton's action was preceded by suits launched by Colorado Christian University, Louisiana (Baptist) College, and Geneva (Reformed Presbyterian) College.
IRFA has organized several multifaith letters to the administration stressing the religious freedom principle at stake in this quarrel, whether or not signatories object to birth control. IRFA's June 11 letter is available here.
|
Go Into Business, Leave Your Faith Behind
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hercules Industries, a family-operated Colorado heating, cooling, and ventilation company, is one of several businesses that have sued the federal government over the contraceptives mandate. Hercules' owners are Catholic and, they say, they "seek to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs." For that reason, the health insurance they provide their employees does not cover contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilization. The Alliance Defending Faith (ADF) is the law association involved.
But, according to the HHS contraceptives mandate, in November when the new plan year begins for Hercules Industries, coverage of those drugs and services is mandatory. Hercules is not a church so it is not an exempt "religious employer," according to the federal regulations.
And, according to the federal government, since the owners of Hercules Industries are engaged in a commercial enterprise, they can have no religious freedom claims at all! The company isn't making religious products and its isn't defined in law as a religious organization. It simply is a business engaged in providing goods and services in the marketplace. According to the federal government's response to the Hercules suit, "[b]y definition, a secular employer does not engage in any 'exercise of religion.'"
Apparently, ethical decision-making by the owners of a company is impossible in principle and in law. Business is business; secular is secular. The administration doesn't think it can be an exercise of religion for a company's owners to decide to treat their employees better than the norm, refuse to operate in a way they regard as harmful to the environment, or give away a proportion of the profits to charity. Surely it will be a surprise to the burgeoning "socially responsible business" movement to see matters of belief and conviction be ruled out of order in principle when it comes to corporate life.
|
|
|
|
Thursday IRFA Conference Call on the HHS Contraceptives Mandate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The contraceptives mandate becomes operative on August 1st, applying to health plans and plan years that start on that date or later, with some exceptions, exemptions, promised accommodations, and delayed enforcement. What can concerned faith-based organizations do?
Join the IRFA Contraceptives Mandate Conference Call on Thursday, July 26, 2:00 PM EDT. IRFA President Stanley Carlson-Thies will be joined by Scott Ward and Patrick Purtill of the Gammon and Grange nonprofits law firm, which specializes in serving faith-based and other nonprofits. There is no charge to participate in the conference call.
Call: 661-673-8600.
Access code: 858-482#
*6 to Mute and Unmute your phone.
IRFA takes no position on the health care law or on birth control. Our concern is to uphold the religious freedom of faith-based service organizations.
|
Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Adam Myerson, " The Case Against Mandatory Counting," Philanthropy Magazine (Summer 2012): "We are now seeing renewed pressures on grantmakers to collect and disclose detailed demographic data. . . . This sounds reasonable at first: who, after all, can object to the collection of more accurate data? So this is a good time to reiterate why The Philanthropy Roundtable strongly opposes any effort to require or put political pressure on foundations and other donors to count by race, ethnicity, gender, and other demographic categories. . . . "First, as became clear in the California legislative debate of 2008, demographic disclosure requirements are almost never simply requests for data. Rather, they are accompanied by legislative and non-legislative campaigns by political leaders to direct philanthropic spending to the politicians' favorite causes and grantees. . . ." * Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, "Comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [ANPRM] on Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, June 19, 2012": "Given the clearly religious character, function, and purpose of gospel rescue missions, our association and its member ministries were baffled by the regulation finalized on February 10, 2012 and published on February 15, 2012 that excluded gospel rescue missions and thousands of religious schools, colleges, hospitals, and other ministries from the definition of 'religious employer.' . . . Equally troubling is the lack of interest in addressing that problem in the March 21 ANPRM. "[T]he definition of 'religious employer' in current regulation . . . and affirmed by the March 21 ANPRM . . . is a gross misunderstanding of religious expression and its impact on the breadth and diversity of America's faith community. The simple and historic fact is that the Christian faith is never confined within the walls of a person's home or a traditional church building. Our faith accompanies us wherever we go and animates our daily work to operate Christian ministries and minister to the needs of the poorest men, women, and children in communities across America. The men and women of faith that work at gospel rescue missions are pursuing their individual Christian 'calling' to serve the poor-a 'calling' that is inseparable from and an outward sign of their faith." * David T. Koyzis, " Challenging our Century's Faux-Tolerance," review of D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (2012), Cardus Comment, July 16: "To 'tolerate' once meant to willingly endure ideas and practices with which one strongly disagreed. . . . However, this is not the vision of tolerance that has come to the fore over the past half century. 'Tolerance' now seems to imply a general nonjudgmental attitude towards the conflicting truth claims of different worldviews. To express disagreement at all is to risk the accusation of intolerance. If, for example, Christians persist in claiming that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, they are routinely charged in the forum of public opinion with being insufficiently tolerant of religious diversity. Those engaging in this sort of rhetoric tacitly hold out the possibility that such intolerance will no longer be tolerated in a supposedly tolerant society. Yet they ignore the reality that a religion by its very nature makes exclusive claims to truth, prompting the discerning observer to wonder exactly who is being intolerant of whom."
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
