Silver Foxes, eating healthy, keeping active all part of our Retirement Living section.
|
|
Catholic women defend religious liberty
With impassioned discussion and collaboration, 36 women gathered Thursday evening at Blessed Sacrament Church in Alexandria to kick-start a women-initiated grassroots effort in what they hope is a burgeoning battle to protect religious liberty. Coordinated by the Virginia Catholic Conference (VCC) and the diocesan Family Life and Respect Life offices, the meeting at Blessed Sacrament was one of several similar events held simultaneously in five of the six diocesan deaneries. The goal of each was the same: to enlist the women at the meetings to go back to their individual parishes and engage more women to educate, advocate and pray in the name of religious freedom. Most notably, this means fighting the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that requires most private organizations, including Catholic institutions, to cover Church-opposed contraception, sterilization and abortifacients (Plan B) in their health insurance plans; as well as advocating for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. With women stepping up as leaders against the mandate — and as leaders for religious liberty — organizers hope to diffuse the misconception of the Church being anti-woman. “The culture and our media has really started this false notion of a ‘war on women’ and the Church wanting to suppress or do something harmful to women,” said Sister Clare Hunter, director of Respect Life, who led the meeting at St. John the Beloved Church in McLean. “The women we know want to set that record straight and look for ways they can be a voice in the culture. This is not, in fact, a war against women, but the Church upholding the dignity of women.” With the goal of empowering the women gathered at Blessed Sacrament, Diana Sims Snider, assistant for communications, research and outreach with the VCC, handed out talking points on conscience protection and religious freedom from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Snider asked the women to encourage others in their parish to sign up for the VCC’s email advocacy network, to find those who are comfortable leading prayer and fasting efforts, and to identify strong speakers to educate others on the subject of religious liberty. Through advocacy, “many voices can make a big impact and we can flood Washington, we can flood HHS, we can flood our congressional representatives,” Snider said. Through education, the women can be prepared — and prepare others — for what is still to come. And, she added, the prayer and fasting will help build a spiritual renewal within the women, which they can then spread to others. The meetings took place one week before the June 21 launching of the 'fortnight for freedom,' a national effort initiated by the USCCB to educate about and witness for religious liberty. The fortnight, Snider said, is intended to be just the beginning in this vital struggle. “We want people to know that it doesn’t end with the fortnight for freedom,” Snider said. “It can’t end with it. We want to be able to practice our faith without being hindered and this mandate hinders it.” “The way we see this, this is not a war on women, this is a war on women’s faith,” Snider added. “What we want to do is make sure that everybody knows how our faith and other faiths are threatened by this mandate. We also have to be on guard for other areas where (religious liberty) could be threatened.” “This is possibly just the beginning,” Sister Clare said. “I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think not every aspect of life will be touched.” Though the meetings targeted women, the groups are by no means excluding men, children and families from the efforts, the organizers said. But a women-initiated effort on such an important issue has a nice ring to it, said Mary Claire Hayes, a parishioner of St. Louis Parish in Alexandria. “The media really sees the Catholic Church as being led by a bunch of old men, and I think it’s important for us women to say, ‘No, this is not something the Church is imposing on us. This is something that’s good for women,’” said Hayes, who attended the meeting at Blessed Sacrament. “I’ve already been concerned about (protecting religious liberty), but now I feel like, ‘OK, I really want to do something about it.’ I hope everybody will get fired up about this issue as well.”
How to help Contact Therese Bermpohl, director of the Office for Family Life, 200 N. Glebe Road, Ste. 523, Arlington, VA 22203; call 703/841.2550; or email t.bermpohl@arlingtondiocese.org
|
For another example of Catholic social activism check out the Nuns on the Bus tour at http://nunsonthebus.com/map/ .
It is so important that we stand up for Catholics protecting the conscience. Now is a particularly important time to do so as we stand in solidarity with American Catholic Women's religious orders who are being challenged to betray their consciences in total disregard for the continuing good work that they do in Christ's name. May the peace of our lord and savior be with all those holy women who have dedicated their lives to Christ and living in Community for the betterment of God's kingdom.
Freedom -- and religious freedom in particular -- is an important topic and merits vigorous discussion and defense. But the discussion is most helpful and persuasive if the evidence is presented candidly.
Congress set this policy, not the President. The Executive's job is to implement the policy. The problem is that there are two policies set by Congress. The first policy is about health care, in particular preventive care for women. The net conclusion of that policy is that by making contraceptive services available to all women (e.g. by removing co-pay requirements) costs will be reduced by about 15% (Federal Register Vol. 77 page 8727, February 15, 2012).
The second policy set by Congress was to implement the first policy through health care insurance plans. That seemed sensible enough, but it turned out to have been a hornet's nest of a choice. Health insurance plans are engaged by employers. This side door connection to employers was unfortunate for two reasons. First, employers have no logical connection at all with Congress' policy objective of providing preventive health care to women. Second, Catholic employers who have historically excluded coverage for contraceptive services are put in an awkward position.
But this is Congress' problem. If Congress were functional, it would fix the problem so that employers would not be implicated by the first policy. Unfortunately, Congress is not functional these days, and the Executive Branch has limited options. The policy set by Congress must be implemented uniformly, or it could be struck down for not being applied in an even handed fashion. Grafting an "employer exemption" policy onto the basic policy is something Congress did not do, at least not in the Affordable Care Act.
Congress blundered in getting employers involved in the first place, but that is water under the bridge at this point. Is there any way to fix the problem, now that Congress is disfunctional? The President's role is to make the first policy work -- provide women with access to preventive health care services -- in spite of having to work through health plans. The fact that employers are in this picture (because they sign contracts with health plans) is unfortunate, but it's the reality that we are dealing with.
What can the President do, consistent with the policies set by Congress? The point of the first policy is breadth of coverage, so it would go against the expressed will of Congress to allow more than the narrowest possible exceptions. The argument for a broader employer exemption cuts against Congressional intent, and invites the President to move in a direction contrary to his duty.
Since employers were not supposed to be in this picture in the first place, perhaps there are ways of providing access that allow Catholic employers a face saving way out of this pickle. Apparently, there are. And the incentives for health insurers are significant: they stand to reduce their costs by providing access. Yes, by providing women with incentives to use the services -- e.g. no co-pays -- consequential costs actually go down (by about 15%). It is no wonder that insurers are happy to provide direct access, taking the employers out of the loop.
That solution should work for all employers except those who self-insure. And even an employer who self-insures might be well advised to have a backup "re-insurance" policy, and the carrier of that policy would have ample financial incentive to provide direct access. Indeed, given the cost realities, one might suppose that the re-insurer would charge the Catholic employer an increased premium for the privilege of denying free contraceptives to its employees.
Of course, costs are of no concern when the moral posture of the employer is at issue. If a Catholic employer would have to pay their insurance company more, not less, to exclude contraceptive coverage from their plan, it would be their moral right to take that course. But that makes it difficult to argue that the "mandate" forces them to endure out of pocket expenses against their will. Nor does emphasis upon the freedom of the employer square with the freedom of the employee, when what is really going on is that employees would be denied free access (and insurers denied a cost savings) in the name of the moral scruples of the employer.
An "accommodation" that takes the employer out of the picture (especially when the employer was not supposed to be in the picture in the first place) would seem to be an attractive resolution for all parties. And it makes moot the premise of the various lawsuits that employers need an exemption (under the authority of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in order to avoid compromise to their religious principles. How strong is the principle of religious freedom when it is used to curtail the freedom of one's employees? This question is particularly embarrassing when an accommodation that avoids this unseemly inconsitency is available or in the offing.
One might suppose that the bishops have ample incentives to find an accommodation that takes employers out of the picture and leaves service delivery to insurers who have the necessary financial incentives to provide free preventive health care services to women. If the bishops have not yet found the accommodation to their liking, they should continue trying lest the unseemly inconsistency in the celebration of religious freedom come back to haunt them.
Worse, however, is that the use of the HHS mandate in the current "religious freedom" discussion put the Church in a compromised position for dealing with a far more challenging problem. The arguments that have been presented by the bishops say nothing about the cost dynamics of preventive case. I suppose the bishops' strategy was to focus on religious freedom of the employer, but were it not for poor legislative drafting the employer (religious or otherwise) would not be involved at all.
The far more challenging problem is not a religious freedom problem. The problem is an issue that has been avoided in the discussion of the mandate for contraceptive services. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For those who are focused on cost, this is a strong argument. But it is one thing to talk about preventive care that includes contraceptive services. Down the road, the question is going to come up: what are the cost implications of pregnancy termination? Even the Roe v. Wade decision recognized that first trimester abortions were statistically safer for the mother than going to term.
The strongest and most credible arguments come from those who are well schooled in the best arguments that can be made by the opponent. Each child in the womb is a treasure, and our society needs to develop a better appreciation of how to preserve this treasure. Why would society believe the Church regarding this treasure when the Church insists on a style of argument that ignores rather than addresses the strengths of opposing points of view regarding the much less difficult question of contraception?
In conclusion, it seems to me that the HHS mandate is being used in the "freedom of religion" discussion in a way that compromises the long term credibility of the Church.