On February 28, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing, “Executive Overreach: The HHS Mandate Versus Religious Liberty.” The hearing was held in response to the interim final rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011 that would require most health insurance plans to cover certain services for women, including contraceptives, with no co-pay, co-insurance, or deductible. The rule contains an exemption for religious institutions, such as churches, but does not exempt religious organizations that self-insure or those that employ or serve non-religiously affiliated people. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on this issue on February 16; the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a related hearing in November (see The Source, 11/4/2011).
In opposition to the rule, Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, “The objection to the mandate is not about political party, ideology, or eliminating women’s access to abortion or contraception. It is about the respect for the religious liberty guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom proclaimed ‘that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.’ This is exactly what the HHS mandate has done. Religious employers that object to the mandate are compelled to either violate their sincerely held beliefs or be penalized. The federal government does not have the power to dictate what health services religious groups must provide. The HHS mandate is a clear violation of religious freedom and a direct attack on the personally held views of many Americans. It is an erosion of religious freedoms. If allowed to stand, the HHS mandate will set a dangerous precedent for future administrations that seek to impose their political views on churches and religious institutions.” Referring to proponents’ arguments in defense of the rule and the compromise suggested by the president on February 10, 2011, Rep. Smith said, “The administration and its supporters have tried to cast this as a women’s health issue to deflect attention away from the mandate’s effect on religious freedom. They assert that religious groups attempt to ‘deny access’ to drugs and services to which most people have no objection. This assertion is false. Religious institutions do not seek to dictate what their employees can purchase or use; they seek to avoid a mandate that would force them to violate their religious convictions. Others have pointed to the administration’s so-called ‘accommodation’ to argue that the mandate no longer infringes on religion. The accommodation is nothing more than an accounting gimmick.”
Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) countered, “It is unfortunate that in 2012 we are still debating how and when women can have access to birth control. Today we will engage in a discussion at how a nation committed to protecting individual liberty can achieve a principled and meaningful balance when those rights are in conflict.” He continued, “I believe that the president and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have crafted a reasonable and balanced approach that respects the rights of conscience and the right to equality under the law. The department’s rule touches the lives of millions of women and their families who need the full package of preventive health care services, including contraception. While there have been many who would choose to ignore this aspect of the debate, the fact remains that the science – and the scientific recommendations required by legislation we enacted into law – demonstrates the need for women to have access to these services. The modified rule put forward by the administration recognizes the importance of these health care services, but it also respects the rights of conscience protected by the First Amendment, and by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It does so by ensuring that houses of worship and allied institutions will be exempt from the rule, and that non-profit organizations with religious exemptions will not have to purchase or in any way pay for contraceptive coverage. Women will still receive the services if they want them, but objecting religious institutions of all types will not have to participate in any way.”
“The contraceptive mandate is an unprecedented directive which deeply conflicts with religious and conscience freedom protections the American people currently receive,” assertedJeanne Monahan, MTS, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. She continued, “In our democratic society governed by the U.S. Constitution, it is not the role of this administration to dictate what does or does not violate another person’s conscience on matters as critical as life and death. It is the job of the government to defend those rights, not trample them. This administration’s act of discrimination against people of faith, and women of faith, must be stopped.” She continued, addressing the administration’s suggested compromise: “[On] January 20, 2012, the administration issued a press release announcing the government would grant a year’s delay so that religious organizations not exempted could determine how to violate their consciences. The understandable uproar across the country led to a February 10, 2012, announcement by President Obama of a promised ‘accommodation’ requiring that religious employer’s health insurance companies cover the costs of contraceptives and abortifacients rather than the employers.” Ms. Monahan added, “This is no accommodation. Religious employers would still under this scheme be violating their conscience by virtue of government fiat.”
Testifying on behalf of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Linda Rosenstock, MD, MPH, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “At the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the IOM assembled a diverse, expert committee to identify critical gaps in preventive services for women as well as recommend measures that will further ensure women’s health and well-being. The committee took seriously its task of focusing on women’s unique health needs. Women are consistently more likely than men to report a wide range of cost-related barriers to receiving or delaying medical tests and treatments and to filling prescriptions for themselves and their families.” She continued, “The report addressed concerns that the current guidelines on preventive services contain gaps when it comes to women’s needs. Women suffer disproportionate rates of chronic disease and disability from some conditions. Because they need to use more preventive care than men on average due to reproductive and gender-specific conditions, women face higher out-of-pocket costs.” She concluded by stating, “Positioning preventive care as the foundation of the U.S. health care system is critical to ensuring Americans’ health and well-being. This is a shift from an historically reactive system that primarily responds to acute problems and urgent needs to one that helps foster optimal health and well-being.”
The Most Reverend William Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Asma Uddin, attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, also testified.
