 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to provide
prolife, profamily, health care professionals, public policy and religious leaders factual
documentation of the evolution of a private and public health care policy that is an attack on
the right to life, family values, religious liberty, conscience and economic and political
freedom. This attack begins before new human life enters into the world and ends as human
life exits the world. It is a battle over who controls what is to be financed in health care. “Who
controls the gold controls the show”. The National Organization of Women (NOW) set the stage
by developing a model health plan for its members. The Alan Guttmacher Institute
(AGI), formerly a Division of Planned Parenthood (PP), teamed up with the private and
public sector and recommended that National Health Insurance include 100% (one hundred
percent) coverage for all reproductive procedures. The Clinton Administration bureaucrats,
having failed with a massive national health care program in 1993, pushed through,
piecemeal, many provisions that resulted in promoting the “Culture of Death” as proposed by AGI; the
confidential inclusion of abortion, sterilization and contraception for children under 19, in
the State Children’s Health Plan (S-CHIP), Health Insurance & Accountability Act
(HIPAA), Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) and Equity in Prescription and Contraceptive
Coverage (EPICC). All of this was accomplished on a false compassionate agenda of caring for
women and children and led by PP/AGI, NOW, National Abortion Rights League NARL, and
other powerful, dedicated and well funded reproductive rights political interest
groups. It is the author’s belief that what we pay
for is what we get! According to Pope John Paul II, we are engaged in a struggle between a “Culture
of Life” and “Culture of Death”. This paper will provide an insight to the background
of those who planned, staged and implemented this attack on life, the strategic and tactical
planning they proposed, and the victories they achieved. The explicit and subtle
financing of the health care Culture of Death will be identified and practical solutions to
redirect private and public health care dollars to fund a health care “Culture of Life” will be
provided. The ultimate goal of this paper is to educate health care leaders, policy makers, think
tanks, and religious leaders on the urgency to reclaim control of what is financed, to
pass laws that protect conscience and provide tax equity for all Americans, and to restore
the free market in health care. NOWmed - National Organization for Women,
Inc Create Health Plan In 1987, National Organization for Women
(NOW) joined forces with Consumers United Insurance Company (CUIC) to develop the
health plan, NOWmed, for their members, spouses, partners and children that
provided the following benefits1: • Coverage for your partner under the same
policy regardless of marital status or sex • Coverage for elective abortions, and • Coverage for surgical and non surgical
birth control In the same year, Care Choices, owned by
Mercy Health Services, set up a bi-pass mechanism to facilitate abortion,
sterilization and contraceptive coverage for members of the UAW. Care Choices send their HMO premiums
to a Third Party Administrator (TPA), “an arm length removed” from Care Choices. This
TPA forwards most of the premium dollars to Care Choices, but confidentially diverts a
portion of the premium to another health insurance company for abortion and other family
planning procedures2. In many cases, purchasers of this health plan are not aware that premium
dollars were being used for these procedures. As of the writing of this paper, these
same benefits are being imposed or forced on most Americans through self insured employer
based, fully insured state regulated health plans as well as federal health plans. NOWmed is
quickly becoming the financing model for Health Care. Even more insidious, these
procedures are being provided to children without parental knowledge and/or consent. The Planned Parenthood Agenda Since 1987, under the direction and
leadership of Planned Parenthood and The Allen Guttmacher Institute (AGI), public and
private health plans have been shaping a health care "Culture of Death" by
financing confidential abortion, contraception, sterilization, invitro-fertilization and artificial
insemination procedures. A clear example of who large insurers side
with is their quick response to the availability of RU-486. On Companies Say They Will Cover RU-486"
" agreed to cover the newly approved RU-486
abortion drug, according to a survey of leading managed care plans. The health insurers,
including national companies HealthCare and Cigna, will cover the
dangerous abortion drug as a standard benefit..." How did your carrier respond to the
approval of RU-486? The only identifiable administrator that will not cover RU-486 in plans it
administers is Verus Health. They can be found at www.verushealth.com. While the protectors of life have been
busy fighting state and legislative abortion battles, the proponents of death were quietly and
successfully implementing their health care agenda. Obviously the abortion battle must continue
to be fought until law once again protects the sanctity and dignity of all human life,
particularly the pre-born. However, the fight for life must also be fought on another front. Having
failed to aggressively engage in the health care battle in the early stages, pro-life interests in
health care have suffered a serious defeat. Not only has right of conscience to finance moral
and ethical health plans been taken away from most Americans, the right to religious liberty,
the freedom for parents to exercise their rights of conscience and, the freedom to be primary
educators of their children, have been violated. Managed Care “Uneven and Unequal, Insurance
Coverage and Reproductive Health Services”, The 1993, Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)
health care reform report “Uneven and Unequal Insurance Coverage and Reproductive Health
Services” confirmed that the private sector, with managed care, was leading the pack in
promoting a culture of death by the subtle and manipulated implementation of abortion and
sterilization in most health plans. This study evaluated private-sector health and
insurance coverage and made recommendations to retain the strengths of the current system - such
as the widespread coverage of surgical abortion and sterilization - and at the same time
include coverage for contraception in traditional plans. According to this report, at least 86% of
all types of typical plans routinely cover tubal ligation and at least two-thirds cover
abortion services. The “family planners” said this was not enough; they wanted 100%, coverage
for abortion, sterilization and contraceptives3. With the expansion of HMOs since 1993, the
family planners got their wish. More and more employers expanded to HMOs
and POS networks where coverage for abortion, sterilization and contraception
is usually covered. Most employers, employees and individuals with major medical health
plans are not aware that their health premiums were paying for abortion. This was due to the
exclusion language in most plan designs “does not cover elective and/or voluntary abortion”.
“Elective” and “voluntary” have no definition, unless they are defined in more detail in the
plan design that is filed with state or federal regulators. What this means is that abortions are
covered for any reason, as long as a woman can find a doctor that says it is “medically
necessary” (another term without a clear definition). According to AGI, confidentiality of
abortion services is “more important to reproductive services than to other types of medical
care”. This same study reported that 71% of HMOs allowed confidential reproductive
procedures for spouse and non-spouse dependents 18 and over, and 64% for nonspouse dependents
under 18. AGI concluded their study by stating the
minimal criteria any healthcare reform package must cover: 1) full range of reproductive
health care services (abortion, sterilization, contraception) 2) dependents 3) confidentiality of
reproductive health procedures for all individuals covered under the plan, and 4) preventive
reproductive services, without deductibles and copays, again to assure confidentiality. Improving the Fit, Reproductive Health Services in Managed
Care Settings” Having failed to get their agenda though
the Clinton Administration’s National Health Insurance Plan, PP/AGI went back to the
drawing board and formulated an incremental approach to accomplish their goals in
their 1996 Proposal “Improving the Fit, Reproductive Health Services in Managed Care Settings”.
AGI recommended that “all manage care systems” cover the full range of
reproductive services for all “enrolled individuals of reproductive age…. and where religious or personal
reasons, that may not provide for all these covered services, AGI insisted that
all religious plans must contain a bypass mechanism to help enrollees access these covered
services4. AGI went on to state that “key to this recommendation is the
establishment of appropriate procedures for plan enrollees to demonstrate enrollment without having
to involve a parent or spouse”. In addition to the above, AGI recommended5: • Control of Administration (billing and
claims) to maintain confidentiality. • Direct Access to OBGYN to include
confidential procedures for abortion, contraceptives, sterilization, artificial
insemination and invitro-fertilization. • Nationwide subsidized family planning
clinics (to include confidential coverage for children). • Accreditation standards to ensure
accessibility and confidentiality of reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood Agenda Shapes Health
Care Financing When Americans thought the Clinton
Administration’s National Health Insurance was defeated, the bureaucrats supporting “Improving
The Fit”, incrementally pushed through state and federal health care legislation
promoting and reinforcing a health care “Culture of Death”. State Children Health Insurance Plan
(S-CHIP) AGI's first goal of their 1996 “Improving
the Fit”, recommending that family planning clinics seek out and market themselves to managed
care systems, was accomplished through the new State Children's Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP). The federal government established the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (S-CHIP) in 1997 to expand health care insurance coverage to children under
19 whose parents earn up to 200% of the poverty level. 48 billion dollars have been
allocated to this program over 10 years (1998 to 2007), with the basic stipulation that covered
services would include physician and hospital care, laboratory, X-ray services, well-child
care and immunizations. While the major goal of this program was to make health care affordable
to lower income families, the reality is that millions of dollars from S-CHIP are being
channeled into the promotion and provision of confidential family planning services that
include sterilization, contraception, and abortion. Teenage females can be signed up for a
CHIP program by schools, family planning services, and social service organizations and given
contraceptives, and abortions without their parents, knowledge or consent. Taxpayers are
subsidizing these services, thereby violating millions of American’s deeply held moral convictions
and threatening religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Lawmakers must be encouraged
to reform S-CHIP at both the federal and state levels by specifically removing coverage
of contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Why are Family Planning Services covered
by S-CHIP? The reasons that confidential family
planning services for teenagers have been slipped into state CHIP programs comes from 1) the
choices the federal government gave the states to implement the program 2) the vague and
confusing manner in which S-CHIP was presented to state legislators and 3) the powerful
lobby of pro-abortion organizations. Although not required by Congress, it appears that most
state plans cover family planning procedures. All 50 states have used the federal funds to
either expand their Medicaid program (21 states), develop their own program (16 states) or combine
Medicaid with a state designed program. (13 states).6 Because Medicaid is mandated
to cover family planning services, the states that chose to expand Medicaid (AK, AR, DE, HI,
ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, MN, MO, ND, NE, NM, OH SC, SD, TN, WI + DC) 7 were required cover
these services. The states that opted to develop their own program were not mandated to
cover family planning services. Though S-CHIP legislation states that “such funds may
include coverage of abortion only if necessary to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy
is the result of rape or incest,” exact coverage or the exclusion of abortion and other specific
family planning services are not mentioned.8 Despite this, 48 out 50 states took the liberty to
offer full confidential family planning procedures. “Reproductive Rights” and abortion
advocate groups are pleased with the outcome. Recommendations of the Alan Guttmacher
Institute (AGI), the Research Arm for Planned Parenthood, state that “all managed
care plans should cover the full range of reproductive health services for all enrolled
individuals and all dependents of reproductive age” and that if providers have religious or moral
objections to offering these services “plans must have a bypass mechanism to help enrollees access
to covered services” 8 Additionally, AGI’s goal of maintaining confidentiality at all phases
of family planning services, including referral, billing without deductibles or copays,
accreditation standards, and the establishment of nationwide subsidized family planning clinics,9 has
also been embraced by most S-CHIP plans. Unhealthy consequences of family planning
services While brochures describing the S-CHIP
plans sound benevolent, parents may be uninformed that their daughters may receive
contraceptive and abortion procedures without their knowledge or consent.10 Besides the
outright killing of the unborn; this is particularly detrimental given the long-lasting,
life-threatening psychological and physical complications of abortion and contraception. Compared to
women who have given birth, the suicide rate of women who have undergone abortions is at
least 6 times higher 11 and the overall death rate in the year following an abortion is 4
times higher.12 Substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and a host of other
psychiatric problems are common in women who have undergone abortion.12 Abortion is
also associated with an increased risk of cervical incompetence, ectopic pregnancies,
infection, and other physical complications which reduce a woman’s chance of later having a wanted
child.13 Twenty-seven out of thirty-three studies have shown a positive link between abortion and breast cancer
with the overall increased risk being 30.8%.13 In young women who have had multiple
abortions and never have had a full term pregnancy, the breast cancer risk is increased
several fold.14 Since 1980, 18 out of 20 studies have shown the oral contraceptive pill to add a
significant risk of developing breast cancer.15 Most of the studies have shown the increased
risk to be in the range of 40%11 to 88%17, with the greatest risk (210%) being in teenage
women.18 Because breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women (1 in 8 American women
will develop breast cancer in her lifetime)19, oral contraception and abortion put teenagers
at extremely high risk. The contraceptive pill is also associated with a significant increased
risk of blood clots, stroke, heart attacks, and cancers of the cervix and liver.20 “Safer Sex” advocates
claim condoms provide protection from HIV virus and pregnancy. Given the naturally
occurring voids or “channel like defects” in latex used in condoms that are between 10 to 700 times
larger than the HIV virus, and the actual breakage rates of condoms being approximately 5%,
reproductive rights advocates have erroneously led the lay public into believing that “safer
sex’ is 100% effective.21 “Non-health” procedures such as contraceptives and abortions
should not be paid for with tax dollars, and parental consent must be required to protect our
teenagers and the unborn. States that removed Family Planning
Services from S-CHIP coverage Groups in from their S-CHIP programs. In 1998, the and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference
(PCC) jointly sent a proposal to the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Children’s
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which stated “It is imperative that families with eligible
children have an adequate choice of providers and health plans, as well as built-in protections to
ensure access to high-quality health care. If this program is to be workable, it must allow
and protect participation by Catholic-sponsored providers and plans without requiring that
they offer morally objectionable procedures, some of which are included in a “core benefit
package.”22 which does not pay for any family planning
procedures with federal S-CHIP funds. In funding, the state’s (CHIP) program would
have to include family planning procedures. The initial MIChild program provided coverage
for family planning services, including abortions. Concerned citizens and organizations
together formed a MIChild Reform Committee, which educated lawmakers on S-CHIP point by
point. As a result, MIChild has been amended to remove the coverage for sterilization and
abortion except to save the life of the mother. The current focus, of the MIChild Reform
Committee, Parental Rights Coalition, Christus Medicus Foundation and other prolife/profamily
groups, is to encourage the Engler Administration to pass an amendment which would remove
federal and state funding of contraceptives, currently distributed to children under 19
years of age without parental consent. In their April 2002 Fact Sheet, Planned
Parenthood encouraged use of S-CHIP to expand their control of American children’s
sexual and reproductive health care. Since CHIP enables states to design the program best suited
to their needs, Planned Parenthood urged health officials to advocate the extension of
adolescent reproductive health coverage (euphemism for contraception and chemical abortion), in
their states and to actively participate in outreach efforts that can significantly enhance
adolescent access to healthcare. “Because an estimated 16 percent of uninsured children are
adolescent women aged 13-18 (AGI, 2001) and approximately one out of every six teens
ages 15 to 18 lacks health care coverage” (CDF, Summer 2001), CHIP – has become the
largest investment by the children's health care since Medicaid was
created. This could provide a significant funding source for family planning services for
these adolescents. 23 On Conference Committee for the Community
Health Department (consisting of House Speaker Rick Johnson (R), Senate Majority Leader
Dan DeGrow (R), Assistant Majority Chair for Conference Committee Senator Joel Gougeon,
and Chair for Community Health Department, Rep. Micky Mortimer (R)) had ditched House
Amendment (H1) to Senate Bill 1101." Republican leadership in the House and
Senate thus missed an opportunity to remove the funding of non health-care services in
order to protect: • children's physical and psychological
health, * the rights of parents to know what
services their children are receiving, and * the rights of taxpayers not to fund
unhealthy and morally objectionable chemicals and devices which undermine the family. House Amendment (H1) to Senate Bill 1101,
introduced by Michigan Reps. Scott Hummel and Gary Newel, passed 73 to 22 on the floor
of the House on would prohibit state and federal tax money
for contraceptives, currently available through the State Children's Health Plan (S-CHIP) 2002
budget, known as MIChild, from going to Planned Parenthood, abortion providers and other
organizations that undermine parental authority by providing and promoting contraception to
minors without parental consent. The Christus Medicus Foundation was given the following
response on why the H1 amendment did not appear for a vote at the public conference
Committee held on the morning of June 18, "The committee had to delete (H1) because to
get federal funds for MIChild, the federal government requires coverage for contraceptives
without parental consent," said Bret important to note that there is no federal
government requirement for the state of provide coverage’s of these
benefits," said Congressman Joe Knollenberg in a letter dated, contraception in MIChild.23 In the Health budget, Senator Dale Shugars gave
the following protest statement against the adoption of the first conference report on
Senate Bill No. 1101: "I rise to vote 'no' on this bill because of the fact that the conference
committee took out section 1678 that says, 'MICHILD funds shall not be used to provide or
promote any contraceptives to minors without parental consent.' I believe that undermines the
families in that the federal government will sanction
if we were to pass that, but the House of Representatives passed it with 72
Representatives supporting that language. I thought we should be supporting that. We support our
parents’ rights, and I think this just undermines it. I have been told also that the policy for
state employees’ health care has the same verbiage as for minors of employees who work for the
state of notified for their children to get
contraceptives. I think that undermines the family values that are so important to all of us, and so
that's why I voted 'no.'" Because states are allowed a large amount
of flexibility, the Medicaid CHIP program in New of confidential contraception for children
in families up to 200% of the poverty level. These types of waivers are being requested by
most states. In the states where the bureaucrats supporting the PP agenda go unchallenged,
huge amount of dollars are being used to undermine parents and shape the conscience
of our children’s sexual behavior. Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan
(FEHBP) AGI’s second achieved goal was the federal
mandate in H11187 Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) that forced
Americans to pay for contraceptives for federal employees. Along with this mandate the religious
organizations that qualified for the exemption to opt out of providing coverage
for contraceptive procedures were identified. The irony is that it appears that the
religious organizations, identified in the legislation as qualifying for this exemption, were originally
provided to the legislators by Office of Personnel Management (OPM). All of the health
care organizations identified, had already formed arrangements to facilitate coverage for
contraception. 2 As of the writing of this paper, there is not a FEHB Plan that excludes arrangements
for payment of contraception. AGI now had a model to show religious
organizations how they could cooperate with the family planners. According to the December 1998 issue of
The Allen Guttmacher Report On Public Policy “OPM directed
federal agencies to inform their employees that if an individual provider within a plan declines
to provide contraception, they should contact the plan, which “will arrange for you to
have access to a provider who will…25” This report leads one to believe that a provider is required
by law to arrange for these services. However, a provider is only required by law to make arrangement
for these services if they agreed to do so in their health plan design. All of the
plans offered by religious organizations, identified in the FEHBP legislation, have agreed to
provide access to contraceptive procedures? The family planners, through the
assistance of AGI, used the passage of the FEHBP law to set the stage for state and federal
laws mandating contraception in all health plans. The December 1998 Guttmacher Report
claimed “Contraceptive Coverage Makes In-Roads” with the passage of the new FEHBP law. “An
important precedent for mandated contraceptive coverage in private-sector insurance plans
was set this year in Congress…. “Both in Medicaid and the private market, religious plans
have found ways to provide access to contraceptives while remaining at arms length from them.”
25 The quote from The Guttmacher Report
(December 1998) on public policy states: “Both in the context of Medicaid and the private
market, religious plans have found ways to provide access to contraceptives while remaining ‘at arms
length from them’ this demonstrates the urgency for Americans to fight for the right to
life and protection from parental authority being undermined, by even religious
organizations. Developing health care alternatives that fundlife saving care and which exclude funds and
access to procedures that promote death and increasing state control of our children
must become a national public policy priority. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Pope Paul
II alerted us that “health care professionals are sometimes being manipulators of life” and
in Centissimus Annus, he alerts us to the State using the Church to accomplish its goals.
The 105 Congress, state legislators, health care professionals and AGI, crafted legislative
initiatives for insurance coverage for reproductive services, that violate church teaching and
have cleverly used religious organizations to cooperate in facilitating provision of
these procedures. Although the family planners would like
health care providers to believe that religious organizations are required to facilitate
coverage for sterilization, contraceptives, abortifacients and abortion for rape, incest and life of
the mother, it is not federal law. AGI and the reproductive rights proponents are making
it appear that this bypass
mechanism is a federal requirement for religious
organizations.
However, the federal government has not yet mandated contraception, sterilization or
abortion for any reason in private health care plans, nor have most states. This was reinforced by
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in decision where-in by federal-government
lawyers urged denying the Navy the right to stop paying for an abortion (for an coverage was not a federal mandate for
any health plan. 26 Health Insurance & Accountability Act
(HIPAA) AGI’s goals to control Administration
(billing and claims) in order to maintain confidentiality and to control accreditation standards, to
ensure accessibility and confidentiality of reproductive health services at the
federal level was initially accomplished by the Administration in HIPAA. Through extensive
lobbying and educating by the Christus Medicus Foundation this regulation was later
reversed, at the federal level, by President Bush. The 1,500 pages of regulations, examined by Cynthia Dudek, Advisor to
Christus Medicus Foundation, has uncovered the serious flaws undermining parental
rights in the health care decisions of their children. CHILD/PARENT BARRIER: Parents may not be allowed to have access
to the medical record information of their minor children
and children may be treated without consent. [§164.502(g) (1) Standard: Personal
representatives Ms. Dudek raised the issue of parental
rights in early February and worked diligently with the Christus Medicus Foundation, which joined
forces with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Research Council to
alert and make recommendations to Secretary Claude Allen at the eventually resulted in President Bush’s
decision to protect parental rights. Privacy Rules President Bush Protects Parental Rights in
HIPAA On Secretary Tommy Thompson of U.S. Health
and Human Services had announced: "Today, I am pleased to announce that
the President is taking a bold and definitive step to protect the rights of citizens to keep
their medical records confidential.""...parents will have access to information about the health and
well-being of their children, including information about mental health, substance abuse or
abortion.” The Department of Health and Human
Services clarified that State laws or other applicable laws govern in the area of parents and
minors. In addition, the Final Rule clarifies that, where the minor controls his or her own health
information and the law does not define the parents' ability to access the child's health
information, the licensed health care provider exercises discretion to grant or deny access, as
long as that decision is consistent with state or other applicable laws. A change in medical privacy rules proposed
yesterday by the Bush administration would eliminate a provision requiring
patients to give written permission before their records can be viewed by a third party,
giving parents the ability to scan their children's medical records to see if they
have at any time sought an abortion or undergone treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases, the Washington
Post reports ( that requires doctors to obtain patients'
consent before disclosing their records to third parties. Under the consent in a certain state, he or she also
has the right to privacy (Meckler, Associated Press, 3/22). The Bush administration announced
last April that it would alter
the rule to allow parents access to their children's medical records
(Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, However, the proposed rule would not trump
any state laws that specifically guarantee minors the right to privacy. Privacy advocates
said minors may be more hesitant to seek "sensitive health services," such as abortion,
under the proposed Bush rule (Washington Post, 3/22). "It's a real step back," Janlori
Goldman, director of the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University, said (Associated Press, 3/22).
The rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and will be subject to a 30-day
comment period. The government will decide whether to issue a final rule
that carries the "force of law" after reviewing the comments (Pear, New York Times, 3/22). The final rule would take effect
on but "certain small health plans"
would have until 3/21). Consent and Notice in HIPAA It will be very unlikely that anyone
understands all of the regulations in HIPAA. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (USDHHS) was clear on the patient’s consent for release of health information.
Page 53231 of HIPAA in the Federal Register states: “The Department disagrees that
safeguarding individual’s privacy interests requires that individuals be permitted to authorize all
uses and disclosures of protected health information about themselves. In developing the
Privacy Rule, the Department carefully weighed privacy interests with the need for identifiable
information for certain public policy and national priority purposes“. Equity in Prescription Insurance and
Contraceptive Coverage (EPICC) Allen Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and
Planned Parenthood (PP) achieved their greatest success when Nineteen (21) states ( passed Equity in Prescription and
Contraception Coverage (EPICC) legislation that would require all FDA approved
contraceptive/abortifacient chemicals and devices in all state regulated insurance plans that have
prescription coverage. Although a few states have included conscience clauses, it does not
appear that any fully insured health plan can exclude contraception coverage. The California legislation, which was
signed into law by Governor Davis on September 27, 1999, is called "The Women's Contraceptive
Equity Act." This is the legislation modeled after EPICC in Prescription Insurance and
Contraceptive Coverage Act) introduced in nearly every state and its federal counterpart is currently
pending in Congress. This mandate forces employers—even religious employers—to pay for such
coverage, even when so doing it violates the teachings of these religious entities. Catholic Charities of California sued in
July 2000 to have the law overturned on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment’s right to
freedom of religion. March, 1, 2004 California Supreme Court Ruled that Catholic Charities Health
Care Plan Must Include Contraception (March 1, 2004) - A Roman Catholic charitable
organization must include contraception coverage in its health care plan for workers even though it is
morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday. Most parents don’t know this means that a
health plan from a Catholic organization, with prescription coverage, must pay for
confidential coverage for chemical and mechanical devices that, not only prevent pregnancy, but also
induce abortion. It is outrageous that a child can now take their parent’s insurance card to a
health clinic and get these abortifacient chemicals and devices, without parental knowledge and/or
consent. The 6-1 ruling could reach far beyond the
183 full-time employees of Catholic Charities and affect thousands of workers at Catholic
hospitals. The high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, which
is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception
coverage. This is only the beginning of the attack
on the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church can be forced to cover contraception for its
workers, then it can be forced to pay for abortions and even homosexual relationships. Not only will
the Catholic Church be attacked but so will Evangelical Protestant churches and other faith based
organizations. The proponents of abortion and immorality are demanding their outrageous
agenda as part of their civil rights and freedom “to choose”. Choice however is only for them.
Catholic and other faith based employers are given "no choice." Health care is
quickly becoming a major battle for freedom in the war between the “culture of life” and the “culture of
death”. Since many Catholic hospitals already have
contraception as part of their regular health plans, it was not a surprise to see Catholic
Charities adhere to the new law and provide contraceptives as health-care packages until the outcome of
the case is concluded. "It is a fact," acknowledges Carol Hogan, associate director for
pastoral projects and communications for Catholic Charities of California, "and it is one that was
used quite effectively by the opposition. This is a matter of great concern to the bishops, and it is being
dealt with." The availability of contraception coverage for employees of many Catholic organizations
suggest that the Church is not all that horrified about being associated with contraception. If
Catholic hospitals can come up with an arm's-length “bypass” using Third Party
Administrators,--as many Catholic hospital systems do when they adopt a hospital or health insurance plan
that provides sterilizations and abortions, then why is Catholic Charities making such an
objection to contraception. 27 Richard Doerflinger, of the pro-life
office of the US bishops' conference, responded that the bishops are taking seriously the health
plans of Catholic organizations. He attributes contraception coverage to an oversight by
many Catholic administrators. "They never looked at their employee health insurance as
something that needed moral scrutiny, and just bought a package," Dorflinger says.
"That's extremely unfortunate, and it is being corrected now in many instances." 28 Although the California contraceptive law
does provide for a religious exemption, the exemption (which has been characterized as
"narrow" by Planned Parenthood) is really a smokescreen. The "religious exemption" only
applies to "religious employers." "[A] 'religious employer' is
an entity for which each of the following is true: (A)
The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity. (B) The entity primarily employs
persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. (C) The entity serves primarily persons who
share the religious tenets of the entity. (D) The entity is a nonprofit organization…." Richard Myers, Professor at the Ave Maria
Law Schools and Board Member of CMF, has provided an excellent analysis of the
California Act. It is quite clear that this exemption would cover very few—if any—Catholic
organizations. For many of them, the purpose of the entity is not to inculcate religious values. Many of
them do not employ or serve primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. Think
about a hospital or a school, or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. Moreover, the exemption
would be very difficult to administer. Is the Capuchin soup kitchen supposed to inquire whether
the individuals it serves "share the religious tenets of the entity?" In addition, the
exemption is only available to nonprofits. The clear message is that anyone else, e.g. the devout Catholic who
runs his or her own business, forfeits the right to religious freedom in this part of his or
her life. It would appear that religion is only acceptable when it doesn't matter, or at least
doesn't matter very much. Religion, in this understanding, is treated by government as a hobby, as a
Yale law professor once noted. EEOC Ruling on Contraceptive Co |