Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

June 28, 2013 - 10:16 am

Health and Human Services issued its final ruling on religious and conscience exemptions for mandatory contraceptive coverage today, outlining a proposed “simpler” definition of what constitutes a religious employer.

Group health plans of “religious employers” are exempted from having to provide contraceptive coverage, but the definition of an employer that could be exempted is one that has “the inculcation of religious values as its purpose,” one that will “primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets,” and one that will “primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says this mirrors Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Service code defining religious organizations for tax-exemption purposes.

“This change is intended to clarify that a house of worship is not excluded from the exemption because it provides charitable social services to, or employs, persons of different religious faiths. It does not expand the universe of group health plans that qualify for the exemption beyond that which was originally intended,” CMS said.

The final rules also offer leeway for nonexempt nonprofits, such as hospitals and schools, that qualify as religious organizations and object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds.

This is defined as an organization that “on account of religious objections, opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services otherwise required to be covered,” that “is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity,” one that “holds itself out as a religious organization,” and that “self-certifies that it meets these criteria in accordance with the provisions of the final regulations.”

“Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization,” the ruling summary states.

“With respect to insured health plans, including student health plans, to be eligible for the accommodation, an eligible organization must provide a copy of its self-certification to its health insurance issuer. These plans must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.”

For self-insured health plans, “to be eligible for the accommodation,” a third-party administrator must “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.”

“The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.”

“The health care law guarantees millions of women access to recommended preventive services at no cost,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today’s announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other non-profit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work.”

“Today’s ruling strikes a fair balance between religious liberties and the reproductive rights of all women,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said. “Access to contraception shouldn’t be dictated by a woman’s employer, so I  applaud the administration’s work to thoughtfully implement this policy to make sure women across the country can access birth control without having to pay a co-pay.”

Courts ruled this week that two corporations, evangelical-owned Hobby Lobby and Baptist-owned Beckwith Electric Company, have First Amendment protections that protect them from the government mandating contraceptive coverage.

Both of the for-profits would not qualify for exemptions on the rules issued today.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty representing Hobby Lobby, noted that “after two years of debate, four failed proposed accommodations, and over 60 lawsuits and 200 plaintiffs challenging the regulation, the Administration has announced its final rule on the HHS mandate.”

“We look forward to closely studying the impact it will have on the existing lawsuits and the religious freedom of millions of Americans, and will provide a detailed statement shortly,” Rassbach said.

UPDATE: Becket Fund has studied the ruling and declared it “the same old, same old.”

“As we said when the proposed rule was issued, this doesn’t solve the religious conscience problem because it still makes our non-profit clients the gatekeepers to abortion and provides no protection to religious businesses,” Rassbach said. “The easy way to resolve this would have been to exempt sincere religious employers completely, as the Constitution requires. Instead this issue will have to be decided in court.”

“When it comes to religious liberty, the Department of Health and Human Services is acting like a kid who doesn’t want to eat his lima beans. Our Constitution and laws require them to protect religious exercise, but they really don’t want to, so they are trying every trick in the book to avoid doing so. But we will keep suing until the courts make HHS comply with its obligations,” he added.

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (4)
All Comments   (4)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
like Luis responded I'm in shock that a person able to profit $9039 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this page... http://www.can99.c­om
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Now that HHS has finally finished writing this portion of the Healthcare law that Congress has passed, it would seem that Congress has indeed passed a law that prohibits, by regulation, the free exercise of religion after all. This decision has the same Constitutional defect that proved the undoing of McCain/Feingold: that the 1st amendment applies depending upon on "who" is practicing the "protected right" in question. Seems that HHS believes that the first amendment does not protect the free expression of religion by "for profit" employers, just as Obama believed (and still believes) that the first amendment does not protect the speech of "corporations". HHS might as well have "regulated" that "for profit" religious employers must remain open for business on "Holy" days, because the first amendment doesn't protect their right to close for religious reasons. The Court is going to have a field day with this decision for all the same reasons it overturned the campaign finance law in "Citizens United".

Democrats forget that the first amendment was not written by government in order to define for "who" among the people the right is protected, but was instead written by the people in order to protect the right itself from the power of Congress.

Obamacare is tyranny.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is impossible to separate edicts coming forth from Obama Inc, via ObamaCare or otherwise, from other putsches against America's founding roots. Such is the case with the evisceration of DOMA and all the otherwise radical left bludgeons. None of it is in a vacuum.
By demanding that a religious institution go against their precepts - unless one is of the Muslim faith, then everything becomes untouchable - the foundation of America becomes that much more undermined. And that's their goal - http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/06/28/the-gay-in-chief-exposes-himself-once-again-excited-about-knocking-down-doma-makes-time-to-call-gay-couple-why-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Again, ObamaCare and DOMA are all related.

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, in other words, become a discriminatory business which you can't do or go against your beliefs or how dare you be in business ...

I foresee the continuation of the lawsuit.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All