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.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center Comments on New HHS Proposed Rules

Yesterday The National Catholic Bioethics Center submitted official commentary to the government regarding the: "Proposed Rules on coverage of certain preventive services under the Affordable Care Act ('ACA'), known as the 'Contraceptive Mandate.'"


The statement, a full analysis of the new rules, is concomitant with the Center's initial impression of the rules and reiterates that they are, in fact, more "restrictive of religious freedom than provided for by the decision of the Supreme Court."


To read the full story and the official comment, click HERE

"In This Issue" -- NCBC Director of Publications reflects on the most recent edition of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly

As we witness the end of the Summer and look ahead to new beginnings and the resumption of activities that often mark the start of Fall, we at the National Catholic Bioethics Center have just the thing to foster critical thinking, to get your brain up-and-running, and to help bridge the transition between the seasons: The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. This award-winning publication, one of the NCBC's hallmarks, demonstrates the NCBC's dedication to scholarly excellence in our commentaries on medical ethics. The most recent Summer edition of the Quarterly is detailed below in the commentary of the NCBC Director of Publications, Dr. Edward Furton. Dr. Furton takes time to reflect on each edition of the Quarterly and describes the contents of the current issue for our readers. We are pleased to present Dr. Furton's post, In This Issue, to you here.

If you like what you've read and want more, start receiving your very own Quarterly! Subscribe to the NCBQ: Visit the Quarterly's page, HERE, and click the Subscribe button.

Enjoy!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we discuss bioethics, we face the danger of separating sound moral doctrine from the mercy and love of God. Talking about deeply personal subjects, such as contraception, physician-assisted suicide, and same-sex marriage, can provoke very strong and sometimes negative reactions. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, OP, in “Preaching Catholic Bioethics with Joy and Mercy,” addresses the importance of compassion when speaking about bioethics from the pulpit. Taking desire, joy, and mercy as the keynotes for his presentation, Austriaco lays out various personal stories and examples that effectively convey the core of the Gospel message.

The topics of in vitro fertilization and embryo adoption continue to generate reflection. Elizabeth Rex, in “IVF, Embryo Transfer, and Embryo Adoption,” situates these issues within the broader context of the Church’s concern for embryonic human life, especially as set forth in Donum vitae, the instruction on bioethics from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Rex responds to two recent publica-tions in this journal, one written in defense of “therapeutic IVF” and the other in opposition to embryo adoption. She argues against therapeutic IVF on the grounds that IVF cannot be justified for any reason. She next contends that embryo transfer is a life-saving measure endorsed by a careful reading of the Church’s teaching on care for human beings at the beginning of life.

The NCBQ has published many papers, pro and con, on the possible postfertilization effects of levonorgestrel, the active ingredient in Plan B, the morning-after pill. José Ulises Mena, in “A Prefertilization Mechanism of Action of Plan B,” argues that the drug may have a postovulatory effect that is not abortifacient. The author agrees that clinical studies show that inhibiting ovulation cannot account for the full extent of pregnancy reduction following use of this drug, but it is possible that levonorgestrel acts prior to fertilization by slowing transport of the ovum. This mechanism of action, if true, would avoid moral difficulty. Mena reviews the literature and previous discussions in these pages in light of this possibility.

“The Decline of Natural Law Reasoning,” by Joseph Tham, LC, MD, looks at how the Catholic moral tradition has been increasingly isolated from the wider secular understanding of ethics. The Church’s opposition to contraception, grounded in natural law reasoning and set forth especially in Humanae vitae, was a turning point in this decline, though complaints against the manualist and casuist tradition arose earlier. The idea of an unchanging human nature, with appeals to a universal ethic that applies to all, no longer speaks to contemporary culture. There is a pressing need for new ways of engaging modern understandings of evolutionary science, human anthropology, and the general philosophy of nature in witness to the universal truths of ethics.

Alasdair MacIntyre’s critiques of liberal political philosophy have made him one of the more formidable philosophical thinkers of our time. In “Liberalism, Health Care, and Disorder,” Robert Kinney relies on MacIntyre’s analysis as he explores the sweeping powers accumulated by the federal government under the new health care law. He shows that the expansive definitions of such terms as “health” and “disease” are in part attributable to philosophical conceptions disconnected from objective nature and joined instead to the satisfaction of human desire. These terms, cut loose from any natural foundation, have become powerful instruments in redefining the health care enterprise. Kinney shows that if the practice of medicine is to remain moral, the terms that define health care must remain connected to the natural order.

In “Causal Constraints on Intention,” Steven Jensen takes recent comments by Christopher Tollefsen in defense of the new natural law theory as an opportunity to examine application of the theory to cases of vital conflict. Tollefsen and others advocate a “first-person account” of moral action. What matters in this account are the proposals that we present to our minds as we venture into the world to make moral decisions. The problem with such an account, Jensen suggests, is that it enables the agent to easily redescribe his intentions in ways that avoid reference to the causal connections that exist in the world. These are often deemphasized or even completely neglected in the first-person account of morality. In fact, causality places certain con¬straints on what we can reasonably propose to ourselves as our true intentions. After reviewing the case of self-defense, as well as the action theory of G. E. M. Anscombe, Jensen concludes that the causal connections in the world necessarily intrude on our actions, even when we attempt to reformulate our intentions in ways that ignore or deemphasize them.

Becket Gremmels, Peter Cataldo, Elliott Louis Bedford, and Cornelia Graves, MD, in “The Metaphysical Status of the Placenta,” argue that the placenta, properly considered, does not belong either to the fetus or the mother, but is a quasi-substance that exists in a symbiosis with mother and child. Most Catholic bioethicists hold that the placenta belongs to the child, because it comprises mainly cells derived from the fetus. The authors note that the existing literature does not argue for this position but merely assumes it to be true. They discuss the anatomy and physiology of the pla¬centa and conclude that it has a unique metaphysical standing. They draw no moral conclusions from this assertion, but if their thesis is true, it could have wide-ranging implications. The authors recognize the controversial nature of their paper and, in fidelity to the Church, lay it before the magisterium for consideration and judgment.

Edward J. Furton, MA, PhD

Editor-in-Chief, NCBQ

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!

NCBC Ethicist to Speak in Corpus Christi This Weekend

As he reaches the tail-end of a particularly busy week, NCBC Staff Ethicist, John A. DiCamillo, will be gearing up for a pair of presentations at the 2014 Ministry Conference in the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas this weekend. The event takes place on Saturday, January 11th and John will be delivering two talks entitled: Living Stones: Catholics, Business, and Cooperation with Evil and: Worship vs. Practice? The HHS Mandate and Religious Liberty. 

Both presentations will address key aspects of Catholic identity and religious liberty, especially in the light of the injustices Catholics in the U.S. are facing today.

NCBC Staff Ethicist, John A. DiCamillo

For more information on the Conference, and to view a poster for the event, please visit the related Diocesan web page, HERE.

Safe travels, John!

BREAKING -- The NCBC Releases Updated Assessment of the Health and Human Services Mandate

Since October 1, 2013, the federal and state-subsidized health insurance exchanges called for by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) have been open for enrollment. In August 2012, the NCBC published a moral analysis of the options for non-exempt employers facing decisions about health insurance for their employees in light of the regulations established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).


In light of the inundating streams of (sometimes conflicting) information that come to the public regarding the manner in which the mandates are being implemented, and in light what the mandates will entail for Catholic Americans, The NCBC is pleased to announce the release of an updated assessment of the HHS Mandate. Our new publication, which will appear officially in the February edition of the monthly bulletin Ethics and Medics, revises the "previous moral analysis of the HHS mandate" published in August.

The new analysis offers:

"Additional relevant considerations to assist in understanding how employers and [now] individuals may decide, through health care exchanges or private plans, to provisionally purchase health insurance coverage for themselves and/or their employees without illicitly cooperating in evil. We also discuss how employers and individuals must consider a number of important moral and practical concerns as the exchanges become available, including provisions for coverage of direct abortion, uncertainties surrounding implementation, physicians who decline to accept exchange-based insurance, the escalation of costs within and outside the exchanges, the potential impact of scandal, and the serious duty to take action and remain steadfast in opposing the HHS mandate."


This crucial document is of great important for the public and we have given it a proud place as the masthead document of the newly christened OpenAccess page on the NCBC website. It is with pleasure that we provide this document to you for free, ahead of its slated February release. So please, take some time to read our HHS assessment now, before it hits the presses next year.

Visit the NCBC OpenAccess page HERE.

Happy Friday

UPDATE -- Dr. Haas speaks on Role of Health Care Navigators

When asked for a personal opinion to accompany the NCBC's official statement on Healthcare Navigators, The President of The National Catholic Bioethics Center, Dr. John Haas, had this to say:

"The National Catholic Bioethics Center has taken considerable time to review the status and the roles of these so-called Navigators and we are urging Catholic agencies not to participate in these enrollment programs lest they cooperate with evil in the role of a Navigator. While acting as a Navigator might not be unethical in and of itself, it could easily place a Catholic in a compromised situation if a person the Catholic is helping specifies the desire to sign up for plan or program with abortion coverage. 

Also, in light of the continuing contentious relationship between the Catholic Bishops and the Obama administration over the Health and Human Services Mandate for contraception and abortafacienct coverage and the risk of scandal, the NCBC cautions Catholic agencies that are considering participating in these enrollment programs."

Please read the NCBC's FULL Health Care Navigator Analysis HERE.

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!

UPDATE: Video of Philadelphia Archdiocesan Pro-Life Summit Available NOW

John A. DiCamillo, Staff Ethicist at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, has been representing the NCBC while sitting as a member of the Respect Life Leadership Council of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. As part of his participation with the Archdiocese, John presented at the Archdiocesan Pro-Life Summit hosted by the Office for Life and Family in July.

Video footage of the Pro-Life Summit is now available on Youtube! 

You can watch John DiCamillo's talk, titled as The Catholic Individual and Business Owner: Health Care Insurance Options, HERE. The presentation explored some of options and responses available to individuals and business owners in light of the HHS portion of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).

You can watch the whole Pro-Life Summit on Youtube as well! Take a look at the entire event (covered in the first six videos on the page) HERE.

THIS WEEKEND: NCBC Ethicist to Speak on Responding to the HHS Mandates

For the past several months, NCBC Staff Ethicist, John A. DiCamillo has been representing the NCBC while sitting as a member of the Respect Life Leadership Council of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is organized and run by Archdiocesan Office for Life and Family. As part of his active participation with the Archdiocese, John will be presenting at the Pro-Life Summit hosted by the Office for Life and Family this Saturday, July 20th. John will be presenting on the HHS mandate and the ways Catholic individuals and for-profit employers can respond to the unjust legislation.

John will be part of a series of brief presentations occurring that day. The event will be hosted at the Philadelphia Archdiocesan Pastoral Center and will be open to the public. The event will be preceded by Mass with Archbishop Chaput at 9:00 A.M. in the Cathedral.

  

For more details, see the flyer for the event HERE.

To view a schedule and the full list of Saturday's talks, click HERE 

If you cannot attend the talks, never fear! You should be able to tune in to local radio stations WISP 1570 and WCOJ 1420 at 10:00 A.M. to hear live updates on the proceedings.

NCBC Staff Ethicist, John DiCamillo

Thank you for all your hard work, John!

NCBC Stands with Coalition of Over 100 Religious Leaders and Scholars in Celebrating HHS Delays

Standing Together for Religious Freedom and Welcoming the Announced Delay in Forcing Employers to Violate Their Consciences

On July 2, 2013, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty joined over 100 prominent national religious leaders and scholars in releasing an open letter entitled Standing Together for Religious Freedom. The letter calls on the U.S. Administration and Congress to respect conscience rights and religious freedom threatened by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive and abortifacient mandate. Despite the fact that the HHS Final Rule with the  Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor for Certain Employers, issued June 28, 2013, temporarily extended the “Safe harbor” (from faith-based agency implementation) until contract years beginning in 2014, the HHS, by its own admission, states that the Final Rule does little to narrow the breadth of this violation of freedom. Virtually all employers, including faith-based employers with few exempt agencies, are being forced to provide these morally offensive drugs, devices and procedures at no cost to employees. Archbishop Lori explained how this mandate has broad implications for all persons who respect freedom, regardless of a person’s faith, or even their lack of a faith: “As the Catholic bishops have said from the very beginning, the underlying issue with the HHS Mandate is not about any specific teaching. In fact, other signatories on the letter do not share our view on contraception and probably disagree with us in many other ways, but they understand the core religious freedom issue at stake here." http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-134.cfm.

On July 2nd the Administration announced that the mandate for employers of 50 or more employees to provide insurance coverage, including contraceptive and abortifacient coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will not be enforced until January 2015 (from January 2014).  There is no indication of the status of the mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance as mandated by January 2014.  The Administration indicated that it would be providing proposed rules for comment on reporting requirements of employers and insurers pursuant to the PPACA: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/02/we-re-listening-businesses-about-health-care-law. However, a company which provides health insurance coverage for employees, regardless of the number of employees, continues to be bound by the HHS Mandate as of August 2012 (unless it is grandfathered or faith-based and exempt - constituting virtually few companies - or if it is faith-based and temporarily safe harbored).

The NCBC is a signatory to eleven amicus briefs in support of employers who object to being forced to violate religious freedom of conscience through these unjust provisions, and receives numerous calls from employers questioning, “What are we to do?” Employers always express concern for the well-being of their employees, citing the untenable position in which our government, founded on the right to protect this sacred freedom, has placed them. This 4th of July, more than ever, calls all people who respect our Constitution, regardless of their faith-tradition, to join together in prayer for the future of this great country.

May God Bless America!

The NCBC Supports the USCCB and Their "Fortnight for Freedom"

U.S. bishops have asked for a two-week period of prayer and action to address many current challenges to religious liberty. From issues such as the August 1, 2013 deadline marked for compliance with the HHS mandate, to the Supreme Court rulings that could redefine marriage in June; serious infringements to our Faith and our rights are present all around us. Catholic Americans are being called to stand up, engage in this Nation's dialogue, and especially, to pray for our country and leaders in what the Bishops have called the Fortnight for Freedom.

The Director of Bioethics and Public Policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Dr. Marie T Hilliard,  as a citizen, registered nurse, and woman devoted to her faith, wanted to take a moment to speak in support of this effort: 

I hope that all persons who value the rights of conscience and religious liberty, will participate in whatever way they can in the Fortnight for Freedom activities. I simply cannot over-emphasize that many of the increasing number of consult calls the NCBC is receiving are from health care practitioners concerned about their ability to engage in the healing professions. They want healthcare to exist the way it was truly founded and meant to be: A source of healing and life, not destruction and death.

Never before have the threats to the religious freedom and consciences of Americans, including health care professionals, been so evident.  What is especially worrisome is that some of these threats are coming from the very government entrusted with protecting such freedoms. All Americans should be aware that, as these violations escalate, the very country we all love will be changed forever.

The Fortnight begins TODAY; so please, find more about how you can participate in the Fornight for Freedom.Visit the USCCB page HERE, and join the fight to protect our Faith and our Liberty.

Sincerely,

Dr. Marie Hilliard and The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Did You Know?

• In response to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate, there are 60 cases and over 190 individuals representing  hospitals, universities, businesses, schools, and individuals all speaking with one voice to affirm the freedom of religion guaranteed in the US Constitution. 

• To date, 31 for-profit lawsuits have been filed over the HHS mandate. 

• To date, of the 26 for-profit plaintiffs that have obtained rulings touching on the merits of their claims against the Mandate, 19 have secured injunctive relief against it, for a current score of 19-7. 

• The NCBC is signatory to eleven amicus briefs is support of these legal challenges, six of which have received a ruling in their favor for an injunction against the enforcement of the Mandate until a full court hearing: 

1. Korte (7^th Circuit) 

2. O’Brien (8th Circuit) 

3. Annex Medical (8th Circuit)  

4. Newland (Hercules; 10th Circuit) 

5. Weingartz Supply Co. (Legatus; 6^th)  

6. Fresh Unlimited (Gilardi; D.C. Circuit)

Now you know!

You can read more details about these and other cases on our Advocacy page.