U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 'contraceptive' mandate
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 'contraceptive' mandate controversy (2011-2018)
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Comment of Interim Final Rules (31 August, 2011)
USCCB | . . . we urge HHS to rescind the mandate in its entirety. Only rescission
will eliminate all of the serious moral problems the mandate
creates; only
rescission will correct HHS's legally flawed interpretation of
the term "preventive
services" . . . continue reading
Letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
(5 October, 2011)
28 U.S. Senators | . . . Ultimately, our concern is with the lack of due consideration given by you and your Department to the adverse impact that IOM's recommendations would have on our core constitutional value of religious liberty. Though the IFRs' "religious exemption" purports to protect religious organizations, health care professionals, and health care plans, it is clear that this protection falls well short of securing this constitutional right. . . continue reading
Conscience v. Conscience?
(3 December, 2011)
Marc O. Degirolami | . . . If the health care law contains an exemption for religious employers, the individual woman . . . is only losing the power to compel her religious employer (for whom, one should expect, she agreed to work voluntarily) to pay for her contraceptive services. On the other hand, if there is no exemption, the religious employer is being compelled to provide contraceptive services, in direct violation of its beliefs. What is of "vital importance" is the failure of so many people to recognize this distinction. . . continue reading
Letter to President Obama
(21 December, 2011)
60 Non-Catholic Organizations | We write to express our deep concern about the contraceptives mandate in
the health insurance regulations, and about the "religious employer"
exemption that is so narrow that it does not protect most faith-based
organizations. . . continue reading
Hobby Lobby Case and What It Says About Corporations With a Conscience
If people want to deny corporations a conscience, how can they ever
again demand that corporations act morally, conscientiously?
Paul De Vries | The Supreme Court was right to allow corporations to be exempt from the
mandate to pay for abortion pills or contraception when their leaders have
established religious reasons against them. Moral issues can stand as
questions for the liberty of conscience – whether individual conscience or
corporate conscience. . .
continue reading
HHS Protection of Conscience Regulation (2008-2011)
In the fall of 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the outgoing Bush administration passed a regulation to safeguard
freedom of conscience for healthcare workers. The rule came into
effect at the end of January, 2009, just before President Barack Obama
took office. President Obama's administration eviscerated and re-enacted the regulation in 2011 to remove the safeguards enacted under President Bush.
Re:
Hearing: Freedom of Conscience for Small Pharmacies
(25 July, 2005)
Opening Statement of Chairman Manzullo
. . .The subject before this Committee today deals with the negative
impact on small pharmacies that operate under the strict law that
requires pharmacists to fill all prescriptions - even if doing so
violates their moral and professional beliefs. I also want to discuss
alternatives that will ensure that women who want a certain prescription
have access to it, while preserving the integrity of the pharmacist. . .
continue reading
Prepared Remarks of Mr. Luke Vander Bleek, R.Ph.
. . . I object that any private business should be required by government to
offer for sale any particular product or service. Additionally, I have
strong professional and moral objections to this executive requirement being
placed on my business. . .
continue reading
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Sheila Nix
. . .The Governor's rule clarified a retail pharmacy's duty to
dispense contraceptive medication without delay. The rule does not apply
to individual pharmacists; it applies to pharmacies. This rule was not
intended to - nor does it - pertain to health care right of conscious
legislation or encroach on an individual pharmacist exercising his or
her beliefs. . . continue reading
Prepared Remarks of Mr. J. Michael Patton, M.S., CAE
. . .Unfortunately, what we are now finding is that some individuals
are now testing select pharmacies to discern the willingness of the
pharmacy to fill their prescription. A case in point is a woman who
would drive over 100 miles to a very small rural pharmacy to get her
prescription filled when she had passed multiple metropolitan areas. . .
continue reading
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Linda Garrelts MacLean, R.Ph., CDE
APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist's right to exercise
conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure
[the] patient's access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising
the pharmacist's right of conscientious refusal. . . . In sum, our policy supports a
pharmacist 'stepping away' from participating but not 'stepping in the way'
of the patient accessing the therapy. . .
continue reading
Prepared Remarks of Ms. Megan Kelly
. . . When I went to pick up my medication, the pharmacist on duty
said she would not fill my prescriptions because of her beliefs, and
that I would have to get my prescriptions filled elsewhere. I was
shocked. . .continue reading
Re: Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
(July, 2002)
U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Sub-Committee on Health
Protecting the Rights of Conscience of Health Care Providers and a Parent's Right to Know (11 July 2002)
Opening remarks of Chairman Michael Bilrakis | Our first panel will discuss an issue that we commonly refer to as the conscience clause. In 1996, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, provisions that provide protections to health care professionals and a, ‘‘health care entity’’ from being forced to perform abortions if they have moral or religious objections to the procedure. However, court interpretations have called into question whether these sections of law apply to hospitals that object to offering elective abortions. . . continue reading
Statement of Lynn
D. Wardle, J.D. | . . .Recently, there have been a series of attempts to compel
hospitals, health care groups, and other hare care organizations to
either provide abortion services or to be denied the license, permission
or opportunity to engage in the health care service. Also, there have
been attempts to mandate that health care insurers and private employers
provide coverage and pay for abortion services. . . continue reading
Statement of Ms. Karen Vosburgh
| . . .the court struck down a state law protecting
hospitals that refuse to participate in abortions, denying the right of our
board to exercise its rights of moral conscience. The court even suggested
that it would not respect the religious beliefs of those who decline
involvement in abortion, saying, "recognizing such a policy as 'compelling'
could violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." . . . continue reading
Fact Sheet: ACLU's Misrepresentations
about the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
US Conference of Catholic Bishops | In testimony before the House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health (July 11, 2002), the
Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
made several claims about the practical effect of H.R. 4691, the Abortion
Non-Discrimination Act. Each claim is quoted below and followed by a
rebuttal that sets the record straight.
continue reading
Letters of
Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua
8 October, 2002 |. . .Passage of S. 2008 is
urgently needed. In recent years there has been a growing nationwide
effort to attack the conscience rights of Catholic and other health care
providers. In one example cited at the House hearing on this bill, an
Alaska court forced a community hospital to provide elective late-term
abortions contrary to its policy and the sentiment of the community. . .
continue reading
15 August, 2003 | Abortion advocates, by opposing this modest legislation, have
called into serious question their past claim that they favor a "right
to choose" on abortion. . . .
Hospitals and other health care providers have "a right to choose
not to be involved in destroying life."
continue reading
US Conference of Catholic Bishops