Catholic Free Press

Catholic Free Press Digital Edition

  • Jun
  • 30

Diocese applauds HHS mandate decision

Posted By June 30, 2014 | 11:10 am | Featured Article #1
(CNS file photo)
(CNS file photo)

By Tanya Connor

The Worcester Diocese joined others in rejoicing over Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of family businesses which object on religious grounds to paying for contraceptives for their employees.
The court ruled that owners of closely held corporations can object to being forced by the government to provide such coverage in their medical insurance. The coverage had been required by the HHS mandate, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed and finalized.
“The Diocese of Worcester applauds the decision this morning (Monday) from the Supreme Court of the United States in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,” said a statement on the website “In the court’s decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote ‘Under the standard that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.’ The mandate substantially burdened the exercise of religion by the owner of a private, for-profit business without being the least restrictive means of furthering public health.”
“It’s certainly a great victory,” said Allison LeDoux, director of the Respect Life and Marriage and Family Offices, who has been coordinating the Diocese’s public opposition to the HHS mandate, including the Fortnight for Freedom campaign currently under way. “It’s a landmark ruling because it upholds the rights of conscience that we’ve been working so hard to maintain and fight for.
“I think the fact that they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act … is very significant, because it upholds that inherent right of all people to act and run their businesses according to their rightly formed consciences. The government has been trying very deliberately to squelch that right.” She said she thought the fact that the government is trying to impose the HHS mandate has made people “stand up and take notice.”
“We have this moral obligation to live what we believe,” she said.
“As Pope Francis recently said, religious freedom ‘is the freedom to live according to ethical principles, both privately and publicly,’” said the Diocese’s statement. “It is not limited to worship within a building but includes the right to live one’s faith in society.
“The Green Family of Hobby Lobby and the Hahn Family of Conestoga Wood Specialties were recognized by the community for leading their companies with high ethical standards including providing exemplary benefits for their employees including excellent healthcare benefits. They did so while respecting their conscience by not providing coverage for drugs or methods which could induce an abortion.
“The United States was founded by people who were seeking a place to exercise their religious beliefs without penalty, and this freedom has been protected without establishing one particular faith over another. We are grateful for today’s ruling by the Supreme Court and look forward to building a culture that fully respects religious freedom.”

Supreme Court: Closely held companies can’t be required to cover contraceptives

By Patricia Zapor

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) — In a narrowly tailored 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court June 30 said closely held companies may be exempted from a government requirement to include contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court said that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, the two family-run companies that objected to the government mandate that employees be covered for a range of contraceptives, including drugs considered to be abortifacients, are protected from the requirement of the Affordable Care Act. The opinion essentially held that for-profit companies may hold protected religious views.

But the court also said that government requirements do not necessarily lose if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

The ruling is not a slam-dunk for all entities that oppose the contraceptive mandate for religious reasons. The court noted that cases challenging the mandate for nonprofit entities, such as Catholic colleges and faith-based employers, are pending and that the June 30 ruling doesn’t consider them. The decision also did not delve into whether the private employers have religiously motivated protection from laws under the First Amendment.

It said the government failed to satisfy the requirement of RFRA, a 1993 law, that the least-restrictive means of accomplishing a government goal be followed to avoid imposing a restriction on religious expression.

The majority opinion said the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate and should not be interpreted to hold that all insurance coverage mandates — such as for blood transfusions or vaccinations — necessarily fail if they conflict with an employers’ religious beliefs.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the primary holding, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion, which agreed with the ruling, but made clear that while the opinion applies to the particular companies involved in this case, it’s not a sweeping condemnation of the key elements of the contraceptive mandate itself.

“It is important to confirm that a premise of the court’s opinion is its assumption that the HHS regulation here furthers a legitimate and compelling interest in the health of female employees,” wrote Kennedy in his concurrence. He went on to say that the federal government failed to use the least restrictive means of meeting that interest, pointing out that it has granted exemptions from the mandate for employees of nonprofit religious organizations.

“That accommodation equally furthers the government interest, but does not impinge on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs,” he wrote.

In her dissent with the main opinion, Justice Ruth Ginsburg called the court’s decision one of “startling breadth” allowing commercial enterprises to “opt out of any law” except tax laws that they “judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Ginsburg, joined on its merits by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, said she was “mindful of the havoc” the ruling could produce and noted that the court’s emphasis on RFRA failed to take into account the impact the decision would have on “third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith.” She said she believed the law was enacted by Congress “to serve a far less radical purpose.”

“Until today,” she wrote, religious exemptions have not been extended to the “commercial profit-making world” because these groups do not exist to foster the interests of those of the same faith, as religious organizations do. She also questioned why the court failed to make the distinction between a group’s members of diverse beliefs and members who share the same faith.

“The court’s determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects,” she said, adding that even though the court “attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.”

As a result, she said, “RFRA claims will proliferate.”

– – –

Contributing to this story was Carol Zimmermann.