From: Greg Aitchison

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank God our moms were pro-life!

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:39:28 AM

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has expressed extreme dismay at the apparent utter disregard

for the protection of conscience which is exhibited in the final regulations which implement the rules for

group health plans and health insurance coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act (Health Care Reform).

On August 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the signature of

its secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, issued new mandates concerning preventive health services to be

covered by such insurance plans. These mandates require that all such plans provide the full range of

FDA-approved contraceptive methods, as “preventive health services” for women.” These FDAapproved contraceptives include potential abortifacients such as so-called emergency contraception

and IUDs, as well as surgical sterilizations. Furthermore, no co-pays are to be charged to beneficiaries.

Thus, every insured, insurer, employer, and policy implementer included under the Health Care Reform

mandates would be coerced into cooperating through insurance premiums and tax dollars, or through

actualizing policy mandates in these state-driven and ideologically based violations of a true

understanding of human reproduction.

Pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, nor is the embryo an enemy who once conceived has no

right of access to the nurturing womb of his or her mother. Not only do these mandates apply to all

group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets; they also apply to

self-insured group health plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). There

are few exemptions, and those pertain to group health plans which were in effect before the Health

Care Reform was enacted, and those offered by employers who are deemed by HHS to qualify as a

“religious employer.” The definition of a “religious employer,” however, is so narrow that its applicability

negates most of the religious employers in this country. To be exempt from these new mandates an

employer would have to hire and serve primarily those of one’s own faith and have the inculcation of

religious values as its purpose. (Although, it does appear that, after the fact, HHS is willing to accept

comment on this definition). The regulations state that this definition is consistent with most state laws

in which exemptions for contraceptive coverage are allowed. The actual fact, however, is that there are

only seven states with such provisions while a number of states have far more robust conscience

protections. It should be noted that the Catholic Church is the largest provider of non-governmental

health, education, and social services in this country. Not only are individual employers who have a

moral, ethical or conscience objection to paying for contraceptives for college students—a group

specially referenced as needing these “preventive health services” before going back to college—not

exempt, but also the majority of faith-based ministries in the United States who are committed to

serving all persons and not just those of their own faith.

HHS has indicated a call for comment, but the regulations became effective August 1, 2011. It would

appear that the only area subject to reconsideration is the very narrow definition of a “religious

employer.” Comments should be sent before September 30, 2011 to: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA@dol.gov.

It is critical that the voices of all persons of conscience be heard, noting in particular that pregnancy is

not a disease to be prevented and that contraception should not be a mandated “preventive health

service.” Respect for conscience is foundational to a just society. At a minimum a robust conscience

protection should be granted, not only for all religious employers, but also for all employers, insurers,

and policy issuers with moral, ethical, or religious objections. As it is, the limitations contained in the

regulations for religious employers make the exemption virtually meaningless.