Bishops praise House provision against HHS mandate penalties
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo
The U.S. bishops have praised the inclusion of new legislative provisions that, if passed, could prevent financial penalties from being levied against institutions that don’t comply with the controversial HHS mandate that requires coverage for sterilization and contraception, including abortion-causing drugs.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston on July 18 thanked the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor/HHS action that added two provisions to the annual appropriations bill.
The subcommittee, he said, took “a first, urgently needed step toward upholding rights of conscience and religious freedom in our health care system.”
The cardinal welcomed the inclusion of the policy from the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act in the House appropriations bill. He said it will ensure that the 2010 health care legislation “allows Americans to purchase health coverage without being forced to abandon their deeply held religious and moral convictions on matters such as abortion and sterilization.”
Cardinal DiNardo said the language should be incorporated to counter the HHS mandate, which he has previously called “the most direct federal threat to religious freedom in recent memory.”
The mandate affects most businesses that have 50 employees or more. Its narrow religious freedom exemptions do not include most Catholic colleges, health systems and charities, despite Catholic objections to contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs.
While the Obama administration has said it will propose an accommodation, it is unclear whether it will address concerns.
The House subcommittee’s provision denies HHS funding for the enforcement of financial penalties against institutions which do not comply with the mandate.
Cardinal DiNardo also praised the House subcommittee’s inclusion of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act in the appropriations bill. The act would codify the Hyde/Weldon Amendment that prevents government discrimination against health care providers who will not participate in abortion.
The amendment presently denies all Labor Department and Health and Human Services funds to states or other governmental entities that discriminate against health care entities that decline to provide, pay for, provide coverage for or refer for abortions. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
-
May 16, 2013 1:07
Alvare talk on women, religious freedom, draws hundreds to seminary
-
May 15, 2013 2:31
US bishops announce 2nd Fortnight for Freedom
-
May 15, 2013 2:15
Black clergy call for abortion investigations, chastise NAACP, CBC for ignoring life issue
14 Comments
I have just joined Catholics for Choice, they probably are close to being a majority of American Catholics
You belong there, Michael. You’ll find a lot of like-minded individuals there who will support you in your heresy. I’ll bet even your buddy Bill would feel at home there.
Love red baiting stuff, use of terms people have no idea what they mean. Ignorance of fair employment practices, legally protected collective bargaining and etc.
Welcome to the new red scare, where trite phrases is used in the place of serious research. Thanks again
Michael — your comment is undecipherable. Best.
Jim please read more American history; your red baiting proves that you have no idea what liberal or socialist means. It reminds me of the late 1940′s and early 1950′s when personal insults replaced intelligent dialogue. You call people names without any idea what you are talking about. Is this cover your lack of knowledge on the subject?
Michael — do you really believe I would believe anything a person who supported an unrepentent terrorist says? http://keywiki.org/index.php/Michael_Joseph_Francisconi You hopefully have enough sense to appreciate that very few Americans would resonate with your radical, un-Christian views.
Again with the insults, you embarrass me when you speak. Thanks again for the mindless red bating I know I am in good company, thank you you feel my heart with pride.
BTW, Michael, I’m not “calling you names” — all I’m doing is describing your history — you are on record as of 2008 of supporting Bill Ayers, who as late as 2004 would not apologize for his terrorist acts. None of those are “names”, Michael — they are nouns that accurately describe the situation. Apparently, you don’t like the truth — but that is not at all a surprise to me. Your views and history tell me you are completely lost, so lost that Satan has tricked you into assuming people like me are intellectual midgets next to you. You can continue to be deceived by Satan if you like, but that will be to your own demise, possibly your eternal demise — which I wish on no one, including you.
There seems to be some confusion over freedom of religion and who is violating whose civil liberties. Every employer has a basic moral obligation to meet with collective bargaining representatives of their employees. Employees have every right to demand full medical coverage including contraceptives. The Bishops our not the victims they are the one’s forcing their own brand of Catholicism on the rest o usf. Please reread Rabbi Waskow, as his insights need to be embraced by Catholics.
Read Fatherless by Brian J. Gail.
And Michael, there is no forcing religion on anyone. You don’t have to believe Catholic doctrine to work for most employers. Conversely, you cannot force the employer to fund things the employer deems immoral. I’m assuming you have a doctoral degree; if so, you are the prima facia evidence that doctorates mean nothing — in fact, they likely mean the person has been brainwashed through many years of schooling into buying into the liberal, even socialist agenda.
Yes there is a narrow religious view that represents the Bishops, not the rank file members of the church and non-Catholic employees. According to Catholics for if a majority of American and European Catholic women of reproductive age practice birth control then I must conclude the Bishops do not speak in the name the Church at all. They are the tyrants violating my religious freedom
Michael — honestly, you literally are illogical. Let’s look at what you said in the above post. “If a majority of … Catholic women … practice birth control, then I must conclude the bishops do not speak in the name of the Church at all.” Incredibly irrational statement. What you CAN conclude is that the bishops and the women don’t agree. The Church is not a democracy, Michael. Even if every Catholic on the planet believes contraception is morally acceptable, that would not make it morally acceptable. Truth is not defined by a majority vote; it is defined by the Creator of the universe, and He speaks to us through the inerrant and unchanging Magisterium of the Catholic Church. God does not ask our opinions about contraception. On the other hand, wise people seek God’s will on this and all issues. We don’t get together with God and have a big pow-wow and from that discussion define morality. If that is what you think Vatican II said, you are most definitely wrong. You need a lot of prayers, Michael. I would not want to be you when you stand in front of Jesus for your final judgment. Second, your statement that the bishops are “tyrants violating my religious freedom” — again, an irrational statement. The bishops are not insisting you do anything; if they were, then you could correctly charge them with forcing you. But again, no force — all the bishops are saying is, don’t force US to violate our conscience, which this HHS mandate will do. If you can’t follow this logic, Michael (and I would be shocked if you did), then honestly you are not worth responding to in the future, as you truly are so wrapped up in your liberal ideology that there is no reasoning with you. To use a metaphor: I am simply telling you 1 + 1 = 2. If you respond by telling me I’m wrong, which should I continue this conversation with you? I will continue to point out to others, however, your political leanings — they have a right to know who you are.
There is some hope — let us keep praying that faithful Catholics be allowed to practice their faith without government penalties. Otherwise, we are heading headlong down the road of persecution of Christians.