His Eminence Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, President, and His Excellency Most Reverend William E. Lori, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, released a statement on the HHS mandate, dated February 21, 2012, to the bishops of the United States.
You can read the text of the letter over at Insight Scoop.
The letter really says what needs to be said, makes all the right distinctions, and rightly invokes the supreme gravity of the situation concerning the free exercise of religion.
Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience
As I understand it the mandate itself is part of Obamacare and not something the President can rescind. The narrow interpretation of how the mandate was applied is directly in his purview. Though ultimately it is Obamacare itself that must be repealed, especially the mandate. Even if the President backs down and the HHS interprets the exemption in a more traditional way it still would not protect private employers who object but are not under the category of a religious institution. The mandate was tyrannical even before the HHS ruling.
Inn some good news involving conscience protection.
Today, religious liberty gained a resounding victory. A federal court in Tacoma, Washington, struck down a Washington law that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
“Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund, together with the Seattle-based law firm of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, represents the plaintiffs in the case. “If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for economic, business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for reasons of conscience,” added Mr. Goodrich.
1 comment
Actually, I believe he can actually directly effect the mandate, which is why New Gingrich is saying he would erase it day 1. That is because the the administration considers these products and services as “essential preventive services” and as such are covered under section 122 ( of Subdivision A, Title I, Subtitle C) of the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (aka Obamacare). Per the law, a task force was established to recommend which products and services constituted “essential preventive services” – but ultimately the decision as to which to include (and which to exclude) rests solely with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Any product or service deemed an “essential preventive service” must be provided on demand at no charge to the patient.
The law as signed leaves thousands of such decisions solely in the hands of the Secretary of Health & Human Services… a cabinet member who serves at the pleasure of the president. So, to that end the wishes of the president are very likely to be implemented (or removed).
One might think this was a risky way to implement the law, after all, a “conservative” president might appoint a “conservative” secretary who would in turn make “conservative” decisions… but the “progressives” got first crack at it… and once they have deemed service A, B, C, and D as “essential preventive services” what do you think the odds are for any president – “conservative”, “progressive”, or otherwise – to come along later and try to remove those services? What, and push grandma in her wheelchair off the cliff?”