Policy & Advocacy
Catholic Social Ministry Gathering 2012, Hill Notes on HHS Mandate and Religious Liberty
Catholic Social Ministry Gathering 2012, Hill Notes on HHS Mandate and Religious Liberty
The HHS contraceptive mandate’s promised church exemption is narrow. To qualify as a “religious employer” and receive the exemption, an organization must meet four strict criteria: primarily serve people of the same faith, primarily employ people of the same faith, show its primary purpose is inculcating religious values, and be a nonprofit meeting specific IRS code sections. Many Catholic institutions (charities, schools, hospitals, universities) do not meet this test and therefore are not exempt.
Practical impact on Catholic institutions and employees
- Loss of conscience protection: HHS treats service to the broader common good as disqualifying for religious‑employer status, denying conscience protections to institutions integral to the Church’s mission.
- Employer dilemma: Large employers face the choice of violating their religious convictions by providing mandated coverage, stopping health benefits altogether (triggering fines for employers with 50+ employees), or finding limited alternatives not available under the federal rule.
- Effect on employees: The mandate can compel religious employees and students to obtain coverage they find objectionable; purchasing coverage elsewhere is the only private‑market remedy offered.
Claims addressed and rebuttals
- “This just expands existing state mandates”: False — state mandates can often be avoided by self‑insuring, dropping specific coverage, or ERISA preemption; many state exemptions are broader than the federal rule and some exclude abortifacients the federal rule covers.
- “It’s about choice and free birth control”: False — coverage is mandatory, not elective, and insurers won’t impose separate co‑pays for mandated services, spreading costs across all enrollees, including conscientious objectors.
- “It only covers contraception, not abortifacients”: Incorrect — the rule includes Ulipristal (Ella), which acts similarly to mifepristone (RU‑486); if FDA designates RU‑486 as an emergency contraceptive, it would be mandated too.
- “Most women use contraception, so why object?”: Usage statistics do not justify forcing all individuals and institutions to fund services that violate their beliefs.
Fiscal and policy arguments
- Cost‑saving justification challenged: Even if contraception can reduce some costs, the government should not override religious liberty to save money; secular insurers and employers can adopt coverage voluntarily without coercion.
- Questionable effectiveness: The assumption that increased access to contraceptives necessarily cuts unintended pregnancies is contested by studies.
Legal and historical context
- Existing conscience protections: Federal law has previously protected individuals and organizations from participating in programs that violate their religious or moral convictions (e.g., 42 USC 300a‑7(d)); some federal programs already exempt religious plans and professionals.
- Coverage requirement scope: The HHS rule applies to virtually all private plans, not only to recipients of government funds, so the usual funding‑based conscience accommodations are not sufficient here.
Public and interfaith opposition
- Opposition spans religious lines and includes groups that support contraception; many secular commentators and multiple faith traditions (Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Orthodox Jewish) have criticized the HHS decision as an assault on religious liberty.
USCCB stance
- The bishops maintain support for broad, life‑affirming access to health care that respects conscience and religious freedom and have publicly criticized the HHS mandate for violating those principles.