Response to the Supreme Court Decision in King v. Burwell

"The National Catholic Bioethics Center respects the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell and, at the same time, calls on Congress and President Obama to collaborate in making necessary amendments to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The core constitutional dispute in King v. Burwell centered on whether clear language in legislation should control the implementation of law and whether the role of courts is limited to interpreting laws rather than helping to make laws. These principles are central to American constitutional governance and the rights it protects. The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that the Court is willing to overstep, as it has in the past, the limited role granted to it by the Constitution, in order to promote a social outcome it finds desirable. Such a decision undermines the authority of Congress and the legitimacy of the Court..."

Read the entire NCBC response, HERE

The NCBC Supports: The Little Sisters of the Poor and Others Challenging Violations of their Conscience Rights

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has again been a signatory to several amicus briefs of late in support of sound and life giving health care policies: 

 The NCBC supports the state of Iowa and the Ruling of its Board of Medicine to protect women from abortions via telemedicine. Planned Parenthood has challenge these safety requirements and the case is before the Iowa Supreme Court. Dr. Marie Hilliard, is Director of Bioethics and Public Policy for The National Catholic Bioethics Center, where she files briefs such as the brief for Iowa (NCBC named on page 4) and she helps the Center fulfill its critical role in defending the human person and supporting the common good. 
(For more details on this issue, see: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2014/09/16/planned-parenthood-of-the-heartland-iowa-supreme-court-telemedicine-abortion/15726317/.)


The NCBC has also firmly supported the Little Sisters of the Poor in their Fight for Religious Freedom, which is being Violated by the HHS Contraceptive Mandate. On Monday December 8th, 2014, the Little Sisters of the Poor will have their day in court before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Contraceptive Mandate, is requiring virtually all employers, regardless of their opposition on grounds of conscience, to provide to their employees through their benefit plans coverage of contraceptive drugs and devices, including abortifacients, as well as surgical sterilizations. The Little Sisters present perhaps the best and clearest example of a religious organization that is faced with an existential threat by the HHS Contraceptive Mandate 

(see: http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=3076 ).

A victory by the Little Sisters will send a clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and will increase the chances that other religious non-profits will be protected from the ruinous fines that would be imposed under the Mandate. A defeat could subject the Little Sisters to as much as $50 million in fines for following their conscience -- that would force them out of their significant ministry to the elderly and infirm, and also send an ominous message about the future of religious freedom in America. Please continue to hold the Little Sisters and their attorneys in your prayers.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) continues to support organizations and their rights to religious freedom which are continuously violated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Contraceptive Mandate. The NCBC joins other organizations committed to the protection of Religious Freedom in signing onto the following amicus briefs, in support of those employers who are legally challenging the violations of their conscience rights: 

• Dordt College and Cornerstone University (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, DORDT COLLEGE and CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY, v. SYLVIA M. BURWELL)
  
• The Archdiocese of St. Louis (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. LOUIS and CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ST. LOUIS. v. SYLVIA M. BURWELL)
  
• East Texas Baptist University and Westminster Theological Seminary (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY; HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, v. SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL).

These briefs represent a total of seventeen amicus briefs filed by the NCBC in support of religious freedom being violated by the HHS Contraceptive Mandate.

BREAKING -- The NCBC Response to SCOTUS Decision in Support of Religious Freedom

The National Catholic Bioethics Center hails the decision today of the United States Supreme Court in support of the religious freedom of the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation and Hobby Lobby Stores Incorporated!The National Catholic Bioethics Center was a party to an amicus brief signed in support of the religious freedom of the two family-owned for-profit businesses, neither of whose families were Catholic. The rights of these two companies, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, were violated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate. We give thanks for this decision and offer our congratulations to the brave owners of these companies who have worked hard to carry on and weather the storm of these legal proceedings.

The Center's release states:

"These family-owned businesses took the courageous stand of challenging the assault on their religious freedom, under the guise of preventative health care, by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate. The mandate requires virtually all employers to provide contraceptive, abortifacient, and surgical sterilization insurance coverage, at no cost to the employees, regardless of the deeply held religious objections of employers. Both Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby argued that their deeply held religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life were violated by HHS forcing them to pay for abortifacient drugs and devices for their employees..."

Please be sure to read the FULL NCBC statement HERE

BREAKING -- The National Catholic Bioethics Center Supports The Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Its Lawsuit Against the HHS Mandate

The National Catholic Bioethics Center officially supports the courageous stance of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia as they work against this: "Unjust regulation, which seeks to impose a “choice” between the untenable alternatives of supporting the intrinsic evils of contraception, sterilization, and abortion or ceasing to provide basic health care coverage to its employees..."

Be sure to read the full NCBC statement, HERE.

To read the Archdiocesan statement, click HERE.

For a more detailed story on the release itself, visit CatholicPhilly, HERE.

May God bless and guide the Archdiocese throughout this process.

  

Happy Friday!

NCBC Ethicist's Major Article Just Released: "Birth Control is Not Health Care"

Dr. Marie Hilliard, Ethicist and Director of Bioethics and Public Policy at the NCBC, has just had an article on contraception and the HHS Mandate published in Crisis Magazine online today.

Dr. Marie Hilliard

The article, entitled Birth Control is not Health Care, takes a thorough and incisive look at the HHS Mandate and at the prominent place of birth control as a pillar of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Hilliard looks at the enforcement of the contraceptive mandate which has, erroneously, been presented as a crucial element of preserving good health, and examines this in light of the current lawsuit being heard on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor. The initiative of the Sisters shows that the decision to oppose the HHS mandate: "Has much more to do with religious liberty," and the defense of that liberty, than any flawed arguments stating that opposition to the Mandate is merely a misguided opposition to good health and health care.


Please read Dr. Hilliard's excellent article, HERE.

Thank you, Dr. Hilliard!

TONIGHT -- NCBC Ethicists on the Airwaves

It has been confirmed that NCBC ethicists Dr. Marie Hilliard, Director of Public Policy, and Father Tadeuz Pacholczyk, Director of Education, will each be appearing LIVE in separate radio interviews this evening.

Dr. Hilliard will be speaking on contraception in the HHS mandate and its place in the the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Hilliard will be on the program What the World Needs Now with Kathleen McCarthy. The interview will be broadcast by the In His Sign Network at 5 P.M., Eastern, tonight.

After hearing Dr. Hilliard, you can tune in to Relevant Radio's program A Closer Look with Sheila Liaugminas to listen to Father Tad.

Father will be interviewed in a segment of the show entitled: Under the Microscope: A Closer Look at Medical Bioethics which will air tonight at 6:30 P.M., Eastern. Father will discuss a number of issues in bioethics, from the Church's teaching on brain death, to IVF.

To listen to Dr. Hilliard's interview, visit the In His Sign Network's website and load the appropriate media player, HERE

To hear Father Tad, head to the Relevant Radio online media player, HERE

Enjoy!

The NCBC Cautions Catholic Agencies Considering Assuming Position of ACA Navigator and Other Roles

There has been an increasing amount of coverage regarding the role that local people (and in many cases, sponsoring corporations) can or will play in the orchestration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)  and and enrollment of persons in the insurance program at the individual level. Referred to generally as Navigators, these local people and corporations will be assistants and are claimed to be available to act an unbiased aides who can help individuals as they make decisions about enrolling in Obamacare.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has taken ample time to review the status and the roles of these so-called Navigators and the NCBC is urging Catholic individuals and agencies not to participate in these enrollment programs lest they cooperate with evil in the role of a Navigator.

Please read the NCBC's full assessment of the matter below:

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has reviewed the various enrollee registration roles developed to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and is advising Catholic agencies to exercise caution in assuming such roles.

 There are three specific roles to assist consumers in enrolling for health coverage under the ACA:

           

Navigator: All exchanges (also known as marketplaces)—whether state-based, partnership, or federally facilitated—are required to establish a navigator program. Each exchange will designate entities as navigators and provide them with grants for helping individuals and small employers with the application and enrollment process. Navigators will also conduct public education activities to raise awareness about the exchange and provide referrals to other consumer assistance resources.

In-Person Assisters (IPAs):  In the final exchange blueprint, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) outlined in-person assisters (IPAs) as a second type of assister that is distinct from navigators and other application assistance programs.

Certified Application Counselors (CACs):  Being certified as CACs enables organizations that would likely be engaged in application assistance anyway to help consumers in a more formal capacity. For example, although not all community health centers and community-based organizations will be chosen to serve as navigators or IPAs, they are well-positioned to provide application assistance because they are trusted messengers.

The CAC designation will help expand the network of trained assistance that is available to consumers.

[Excerpted from Enroll America Fact Sheet: http://files.www.enrollamerica.org/best-practices-institute/enroll-america-publications/Enrollment_Assisters_Fact_Sheet.pdf.]

There is a significant possibility of scandal, which is to be judged by the diocesan bishop, when a Catholic agency participates not only as a Navigator but also in providing In-Person Assisters or Certified Application Counselors for enrollment in coverage by the Exchanges.  This is not just because of the morally illicit drugs and procedures which will be facilitated by implementing the ACA, but also because of the violation of religious liberty occurring pursuant to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contraceptive and abortifacient mandate in the implementation of the ACA.

There are also additional concerns, especially for states that have not banned abortion coverage in the Exchanges.  Pursuant to the ACA, only one plan per Exchange must omit such coverage.  Therefore, those enrolling persons that select a plan that includes abortion coverage are cooperating in a manner that would be hard to justify, even if it was mediate material cooperation with evil (which at times can be justified, as addressed, below).  This becomes especially problematic when the enrollee specifically requests abortion coverage (speaking to intent, which constitutes what is always morally illicit formal cooperation).  

Explicit formal cooperation in evil occurs when the cooperator (e.g., enroller) has the same evil intent as the principal agent (enrollee who desires insurance coverage of abortion for its potential use). Even if the enroller of an enrollee would prefer that the coverage not include abortion coverage, but acts to assure that the enrollee has such coverage as an In-Person Assister, Certified Application Counselor, or contracted Navigator, this could constitute implicit formal cooperation.  Even in the absence of direct abortion coverage, the enrollee may be a person who intends to use the abortifacient drugs and contraceptive coverage, facilitated by the enroller, presenting a similar moral dilemma as outlined above. 

This is unlike a person accepting a health care insurance plan for his/her family that does include the morally illicit coverage, which cannot be refused, but at the same time knowing that coverage will not be used.  This represents remote mediate material cooperation by which material assistance (payment of premiums) is given, which neither causes another person to commit an evil, nor intends evil.  It may make the evil possible by contributing to the overall financing of the plan, not dissimilar to paying taxes.  For such an enrollee, for the proportionate good of the family’s health care coverage, the remote mediate material cooperation could be justified, with the understanding that the family makes known its objections to such public policy and works in a prudentially appropriate manner to effectuate change.

This is the NCBC opinion on the matter, in which we urge that Catholic agencies not sponsor or assume the roles of Navigator, In-Person Assister, or Certified Application Counselors for the Exchanges because of the implications of these actions for cooperation with evil.  Of course, the final decision rests with the diocesan bishop.

Who is Free to Exercise Religion? An NCBC Ethicist Weighs In

John A. Di Camillo, Staff Ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, has just completed an article that targets and addresses conflicting opinions that have arisen in the United States courts as the Judiciary continues in attempting to delineate and interpret the "identity, purpose, and scope of business entities and the relationship of those entities to their owners and to religious exercise" in light of the HHS mandates and government enforcement of the unjust laws.

John Di Camillo provides a deeper look into the ongoing battle for religious freedom as:

"Two federal courts of appeal have come to opposite conclusions regarding whether for-profit companies can claim religious liberty protections. All for-profit and most non-profit organizations in the United States continue to be impacted by the legal requirement that was established by a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and incrementally clarified by regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has come to be known as the HHS Mandate. The HHS Mandate requires that employers who offer health insurance include, at no cost to employees, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, including surgical sterilizations as well as abortion-inducing drugs and devices such as ellaOne, Plan B, and IUDs. Providing this sort of insurance coverage is at odds with the moral values and religious convictions of many U.S. citizens and business owners, especially Catholics."

Read the full article HERE.

The NCBC Supports: The USCCB Life Issues Forum

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a Call to Action through their Life Issues Forum. Dr. Marie Hilliard, Director of Public Policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center said of the press release: "The examples given by the USCCB  are just a few of the many trials Christians have faced as they attempt to defend their faith and uphold moral teaching...the truly heartrending story of Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo is one example that has been cited for years since it occurred. It is a perfect illustration of what many Catholics are up against in America today, in healthcare and in all the areas of our lives."

As Catholics we must speak up. We must act.

From the USCCB:

LIFE ISSUES FORUM                                                       August 20, 2013
           

Stand with Sr. Jane Marie                                                 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
By Deirdre A. McQuade

Cathy, Sr. Jane Marie, and Christine are three Catholic women whose freedom to work according to their faith is being severely threatened. In March they traveled to Washington, DC, urging Congress to pass the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940, S. 1204), which would protect their freedom of conscience. Now they need your help: read their stories below, watch and share the brief video on their stories, and stand in solidarity with them by contacting Congress today!

Catherina “Cathy” Cenzon-DeCarlo is an operating room nurse at a major hospital in New York City. In 2009, Cathy was forced to participate in a 22-week abortion against her clearly-stated objections. Cathy has suffered deep trauma from witnessing the abortion and accounting for all of the unborn child’s body parts afterwards. She says it was like “a horror film unfolding.” Cathy sued the hospital; but while her employer’s coercion was illegal, she had no recourse in the court. Since then, many other nurses and medical staff have told her she’s not alone. Contrary to their medical oath to “do no harm,” they, too, have been pressured to destroy life rather than preserve it. Cathy and her colleagues need the legal protection of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act to ensure that such discrimination never happens again.

Sr. Jane Marie Klein is the chair of the board for the non-profit Franciscan Alliance, a 13-hospital Catholic health care system in Indiana, Michigan & Illinois, serving over four million patients each year regardless of their ability to pay. Under the guise of “preventive services for women,” this Administration is forcing nearly all employers to cover sterilization procedures, as well as contraception and abortifacient drugs and devices in their health plans at no cost to the employee – the so-called “HHS mandate.” The Franciscan Alliance has been a Catholic system for over 130 years, but does not qualify for an exemption as a “religious employer” according to the mandate’s extremely narrow definition. Soon they will face crippling fines for being faithful to Catholic teaching. The Franciscan Alliance is suing the federal government to protect their freedom of conscience. The Health Care Conscience Rights Act would properly define who qualifies as a religious employer so that much-needed medical facilities and charitable organizations will be able to continue serving our neediest neighbors.

Christine Ketterhagen is a co-owner and board member of a family-run company, Hercules Industries, in Denver, Colorado. They provide excellent benefits, and draw the line at payment for contraceptives and drugs like Ella marketed as “emergency” contraception that can actually cause early abortions, Because of the Administration’s mandate, Hercules will also face punishing fines if they refuse to comply — $162,500 per week! They, too, are suing the Administration so that they will not be forced to include objectionable coverage against their core values. If passed into law, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act will establish conscience rights protections for private entities that are not faith-based organizations.

Cathy, Sr. Jane Marie, and Christine tell their stories in our YouTube video: Speak Up for Conscience Rights Today.  Watch it and then share the link with friends, colleagues, and family members. 

Finally, stand in solidarity with these brave women. Send your personalized email to Congress at www.usccb.org/conscience. It only takes a few minutes!

Thank you for speaking up for conscience rights today!

WATCH: Father Tad Pacholczyk Talks Human Cloning, Insurance Coverage, and Angelina Jolie on Live T.V.

Last night, May 30th, 2013, Ethicist and Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Father Tad Pacholczyk had the opportunity to film a segment with Raymond Arroyo for his show The World Over in Washington, D.C..

Father Tad

The live broadcast occurred at 8 P.M. Eastern time and, in under 20 minutes, Father Tad tackled the therapeutic embryonic cloning debate, patenting human genetic material, the moral concerns of insurance coverage for contraceptives and even news relating to Angelina Jolie's mastectomy!

Watch this fantastic news interview on youtube, HERE beginning at minute 41:15.

If you have cable television with access to EWTN, you can watch secondary broadcasts on:

 - Sunday at 7 P.M. Eastern

- Monday at 10 P.M. Eastern

And be sure to read father Tad's written response to the recent advances in therapeutic embryonic cloning for stem cells HERE and HERE.

Happy Friday!

Human Stem Cells Created by "Therapeutic Cloning" - Assessing the Ethics

New Article on Cloning and Stem Cells by the National Catholic Bioethics Center's Director of Education, Father Tad.

Taken from the NCBC Homepage

To read more articles like this, click HERE

Have a blessed and triumphant Pentecost.

___________________________________________________________________________

5/17/13 

Advocates are quick to point out that stem cell research is about helping those who are living. This is not quite correct. Certainly adult stem cell research is about helping the living. Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, is about destroying some of the living, namely those who are still young and vulnerable as embryos, in the name of helping others who may be struggling with diseases. Recent research from the laboratory of Shoukhrat Mitalipov at Oregon Health & Science University involving the production of human embryos by nuclear transfer (a form of cloning) relies on this same immoral step of intentional human embryo destruction in the interest of achieving a therapeutic result.

Prior to this breakthrough, human embryonic stem cell research had largely sought to utilize abandoned embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen, “left over” from fertility treatments, to destructively obtain stem cells. The frozen embryo approach was plagued with a persistent difficulty, however. If Jane Doe were to request that a random embryo, stored in the freezer of a local fertility clinic, be destroyed to obtain stem cells to treat some ailment or disease she had, those cells, when introduced into her body, would be seen as foreign because they came from an embryo to which she was not genetically related, and they would be summarily rejected by her body.

"Therapeutic" cloning of the type reported by the Mitalipov laboratory purports to get around the rejection problem by producing a genetically related embryo, that is to say, an embryonic human clone who is a genetic identical twin of the treatment recipient. Starting from one of Jane’s body cells and an egg cell, this new embryonic twin sister would be grown for about 5 days of gestation in the laboratory before being destroyed to extract the desired stem cells. Because identical twins can exchange kidneys and other organs without rejecting them, stem cells taken from the cloned embryo (the younger genetic twin) would not be rejected upon transplantation into Jane (the older twin). Yet producing our own twin brothers or sisters as embryos merely to harvest them for their desired cells – producing life simply to extinguish it – remains a gravely unethical and morally indefensible proposal. Twenty human eggs were used in the attempt to therapeutically clone a patient with Leigh syndrome in Mitalipov’s work, but only two of the cloned embryos ended up yielding stem cells. Numerous human embryos, produced for the explicit and premeditated purpose of their destruction, are typically required for the success of this technique.

We ought not sanction the creation of a subclass of human beings, comprised of those still in their embryonic or fetal stages, to be exploited by those fortunate enough to have already passed safely beyond those early and vulnerable stages. The research from the Mitalipov laboratory represents a turn in the wrong direction for the future of science, and needs to be repudiated as inherently unethical, even more so in light of the continual and impressive progress being made with morally acceptable alternatives such as induced pluripotent stem cells and various forms of adult stem cells.

 

Father Tad Pacholczyk

The NCBC joins the fight, takes on Abortion in New York

Keeping up their hard work to foster a Culture of Life, as mentioned in the post below, The National Catholic Bioethics Center has joined hundreds of New York state and national organizations in signing onto a Statement of Principles in response to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s proposed abortion expansion act, as well as any other bill that would further liberalize existing state laws on abortion.  The seven Principles simply explain why the people of New York deserve better than a reckless policy of abortion expansion. Dr. Marie T. Hilliard, Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, and a registered nurse with a graduate degree in maternal-child health nursing, cites the irony of how such an expansion is misrepresented as “reproductive health.”  She expresses significant concern for women: 

“ Have we learned nothing from the Kermit Gosnell case, and his abortion house of horrors in Philadelphia? Abortion is an assault on a woman’s well-being, irrevocably robbing a mother of her child. The expanded policies, themselves, speak to a disregard for women for the sake of economics. Allowing late term abortions in outpatient facilities and allowing non-physicians to perform abortions are just two examples of how expansion of abortion policies is detrimental to women. What women need are caring and supportive persons and resources to enable them to be the woman that all women want to be: a caring nurturing source of life, not death.” 

For more information and to see the full Statement of Principles, click HERE  For more information on the signatories, click HERE.

Read It!

Please, take some time to read The Center's assessment, composed and researched by our director of Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Marie Hilliard, HERE.

Decisions to be Made TODAY Regarding HHS Mandate

Some final decisions regarding the "revisions" promised by the government to various Catholic and Christian institutions are going to be made soon, but there is still time to be heard by the end of the day today. It is expected that the decision will be ready soon, and The National Catholic Bioethics Center has addressed the potentially limited and ineffectual nature/scope of the government's "accommodations." The NCBC wants to let all Catholics, Catholic and Christian affiliated groups, and other concerned individuals know that they can go to the website of the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, and send comments to Health and Human Services regarding these unjust provisions.

So please, take some time to read The Center's assessment, composed and researched by our director of Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Marie Hilliard, HERE. Then ACT and write to our government. Lend your strength to the voices of Faith, Justice, and the Good.

And most of all, pray for the outcome of these proceedings. May God's will be done.

Here is an excerpt from Marie's writing:

The NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rule Making] seeks public comment on the Proposed Rule, the “Summary” of which states:

The proposed rules would amend the authorization to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans) with respect to the requirement to cover contraceptive services. The proposed rules would also

establish accommodations for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage offered in connection with such plans), including student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher

education.6

In fact, the Proposed Rule itself asserts that “The Departments believe that this Proposed Rule would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules.”7 Thus, pursuant to this Proposed Rule, most, if not all, of our membership will not be exempt and will be subject to the violations of their religious freedom and their conscientious objections to these methods by the mandates contained in the Proposed Rule.

6 78 Fed. Reg. 8456-8476 (February 6, 2013), at 8456-8457.

7 Ibid, 8461.

The Center wishes to comment on the following concerns pertaining to the Proposed

Rule in the NPRM:

1. The Proposed Rule continues to create new law by narrowly defining which organizations the federal government arbitrarily will recognize as exempt: “Religious employers,” which basically include only “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”8

The Proposed Rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment9 of the U.S. Constitution in that de facto the Proposed Rule is establishing what the administration considers to be a religious organization. It is creating an arbitrary definition and legal recognition of some religious organizations, inconsistent with federal law, deeming some, but not others, to have an equal protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.10 Specifically, despite the fact that thousands of other religious organizations are recognized under a federal Group Ruling11 as being organized and operating as non-profit religious organizations, they are being deemed, under this legally

inaccurate and arbitrary delineation, as not religious enough to be exempt from the mandated

coverage.

8 Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii), as cited in 78 Fed. Reg. 8458.

9 U.S. Constitution: First Amendment.

10 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4.

11 In 1946 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its predecessor organization, a group tax exemption ruling to Catholic organizations listed in The Official Catholic Directory (OCD). This is updated annually. The Group Ruling establishes (1) that organizations included in the OCD are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Code and from federal unemployment tax; and (2) that contributions to such organizations are deductible for federal income, gift, and estate tax purposes. See: http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/upload/group-ruling-memo.pdf.

There is No Inconsistency: An NCBC Ethicist Addresses the Emergency Contraception Debate

The National Catholic Bioethics Center's Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, Marie Hilliard, has addressed the controversy that flared up in The U.S. media in the last few weeks:

 There is No Inconsistency: German and American Bishops’
Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims

Recently the secular media again has insisted that there is a disparity among the teachings of the Catholic Bishops. They cite the recent statements by German bishops concerning sexual assault protocols in Catholic hospitals. However, on a closer examination, it is clear that their position is consistent with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), as promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

Cardinal Joachim Meissner stated on January 31, 2013, concerning compassionate care of sexual assault victims, that if “a medication that hinders conception is used after a rape with the purpose of avoiding fertilization, then this is acceptable in my view.”[1]  As a follow-up to this statement, the matter was reviewed by the German Bishops Conference, which issued a statement affirming what sexual assault victims may receive from Catholic hospitals treatments: "That can include prescription of the `morning-after pill,' insofar as it has a preventive and not an abortive effect. Medical and pharmaceutical methods which result in the death of an embryo still may not be used."[2]

• [1] FIAMC,  “H.E. Meisner´s contraception statement, manipulated:”Available at http://www.fiamc.org/news/h-e-meisner%C2%B4s-contraception-statement-manipulated/. Last accessed March 8, 2013.

• [2] German Bishops Conference, “Statement of February 21, 2013:” Available at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/21/german-bishops-ok-emergency-contraception-in-rape-cases/#ixzz2Myw2E6mt. Last accessed March 8, 2013.

This is completely consistent with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.[3]

• [3] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 2009), n.36.

A woman has the right to protect herself from the unjust aggressor and from becoming pregnant by this terrible act of aggression. Specifically, the ERDs state that compassionate care must be provided to the victims of sexual assault, including physical, psychological, and spiritual; that the hospital must support law enforcement; and that the woman has the right to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. In fact, Catholic hospitals have had compassionate sexual assault protocols in place long before secular hospitals, because of their awareness of the potential for two innocent victims: the victim and potentially her newly conceived child.

However, despite secular trends to redefine conception to mean implantation in the uterus of the conceived human being,[4] it is a biological fact, contained in any biology textbook, that the new human being has been conceived at fertilization, which occurs five to twelve days before implantation.[5]  The newly conceived embryo needs his or her mother’s womb to be nourished and to grow.  Thus, drugs which have the potential to prevent implantation of the conceived human being are abortifacient, regardless of the deceptive language used to describe their function.

• [4] “Conception” historically and more accurately referred to fertilization. See American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Terminology, Obstetric-Gynecologic Terminology, with Section on Neonatology and Glossary of Congenital Anomalies, ed. Edward Hughes (Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972).
• [5] Asgerally T. Fazleabas and J. Julie Kim, “What Makes an Embryo Stick?” Science , 299, no. 5605 (January 17, 2003): 355-356. Available at  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5605/355 or DOI: 10.1126/science.1081277.  (Last accessed June 1, 2011).

With appropriate testing, as indicated by the ERDs, emergency contraception may be provided to sexually assaulted women, and should be.  Manufacturers of emergency contraception indicate that it has three potential functions: to prevent ovulation, so that fertilization cannot occur; to alter the woman’s cervical mucus to slow the speed of the sperm reaching the egg (ovum); and to alter the uterine lining to prevent the embryo from implanting and receiving the nourishment it needs to survive.[6]

• [6] The manufacturer’s webpage for Plan B One-Step states that if administered within 72 hours after sexual intercourse, “Plan B® One-Step works primarily by: Preventing ovulation[,] Possibly preventing fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or egg[,] Altering the endometrium, which may inhibit implantation.” See http://planbonestep.com/plan-b-prescribers/how-plan-b-works.aspx.

Credible research tells us that altering sperm mobility and its capacity to fertilize the egg cannot occur quickly enough when these hormones are taken for emergency contraception.[7] Sperm can be at the point of fertilization in a woman in five minutes.[8] Thus, the only function of emergency contraception that does not involve the destruction of the newly conceived human being, that can occur quickly enough, is the prevention of ovulation. 

• [7] Natalia Novikova et al., “Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception Given Before or After Ovulation: A Pilot Study,” Contraception 75.2 (February 2007): 112–118.
• [8] L. Speroff, et al., Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkens, 5th edition, 1994), p. 232.

There is no test to determine if conception has occurred until up to 16 days after the embryo has been conceived.  However, there is a simple test to determine if the emergency contraception can be given at a time that may prevent ovulation, and that is a simple, non-invasive urine test for the Luteinizing Hormone.  Research clearly indicates that if this test is positive, emergency contraception cannot stop ovulation.[9]  Thus, Catholic hospitals can use this test as part of a sexual assault protocol to determine if pregnancy can be prevented.  The test is usually positive only for one day, and the egg usually only lives for one day, so there is a very limited period of time in which the emergency contraception should not be administered in order to prevent its potential abortifacient effect (prevention of implantation, which manufacturers indicate is a potential action).

• [6] Natalia Novikova et al., “Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception Given Before or After Ovulation: A Pilot Study,” Contraception 75.2 (February 2007): 112–118.

In all such cases, the patient is provided with all the information she needs for informed consent as to why such testing should be done, and all of the manufacture’s stated potential actions of the emergency contraction.  This is just good medicine.  And if the patient, after being stabilized and provided all of the excellent care available to her at our Catholic hospitals, wishes to be transferred safely to another provider of her choice, the transfer of care is safely provided for her.  In this way the truly informed rights of the patient as well as the sacrosanct rights to religious freedom of health care providers, so critical to the very reason this country was founded, are respected.

 

The position of the German and American bishops constitutes compassionate and pastoral care of the victim of sexual assault who has the right to protect herself from the unjust aggressor, by preventing conception, as it is accurately defined.  Both statements clearly indicate that anything that is used to cause the death of the embryo after conception is inconsistent with respect for human life. Thus, both the positions of the American bishops and that of the German bishops are totally consistent and do not represent any new teaching of the Catholic Church.