file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0060.html[8/29/2011 2:42:18 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eebdc1

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0060

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Kimberley 

General Comment

See attached file(s)

These comments are submitted pursuant to the Iterim Final Rule published on August 3, 2011, at

Fed. Reg. 46621-01. In part, the Iterim Final Rule established an exemption for certain religious

employers from the requirement that health insurance plans -including those offered by employers -

cover the full range of birth control drugs, as well as drugs which many believe to result in an

abortion such as "Ella" and "the morning after pill."

I vigorously oppose the illegally narrow religious exemption created in the Interim Final Rule. Please

see attached file.

Attachments

Religious Exemption
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services

Hubert Humphrey Building

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

These comments are submitted pursuant to the Iterim Final Rule published on 

August 3, 2011, at Fed. Reg. 46621-01. In part, the Iterim Final Rule established 

an exemption for certain religious employers from the requirement that health 

insurance plans -including those offered by employers - cover the full range of 

birth control drugs, as well as drugs which many believe to result in an abortion 

such as "Ella" and "the morning after pill."

I vigorously oppose the illegally narrow religious exemption created in the Interim 

Final Rule. This exemption requires that a religious organization show the 

following in order to receive and exemption:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization;

(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets 

of the organization;

(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets 

of the organization; and

(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 

6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986, as amended.

This proposed religious exemption would apply almost exclusively only to house 

of worship, and possibly some denominational seminaries. I believe that the 

religious exemption should be broadened.

The Problem: religious and conscientious objections to paying for certain 

drugs

Under the guidelines released on August 1, 2011 by the Health Resources and 

Services Administration (HRSA), most health insurance plans in the United 

States - including those offered by private employers - must provide full access to 

birth control drugs, as well as abortion-inducing drugs such as "Ella" and the 

"morning after pill." Numerous medical professionals in the pro-life and medical 

communities believe that "Ella," the "morning after pill," and similar drugs have 

been shown to harm women, and actually kill the developing baby by starving it 

of nutrients.

As a result of the HRSA guidelines, employers who have a pro-life, religious, or 
other conscientious objection to facilitating the use of birth control drugs or 

abortion-inducing drugs are now required to provide the very drugs that they 

believe result in the death of a human being. According to the dictates of their 

conscience, this would be murder and sinful.

Birth control drugs and abortion-inducing drugs like "Ella" and the "morning after 

pill" are commercially available. Women who desire to use them can easily obtain 

these drugs. I, a US Citizen, am not suggesting trampling the rights of other US 

citizens who would want to obtain or use these drugs by making it illegal to do so. 

However, now that employers will be required to pay for these drugs, the 

religious and conscientious rights of employers are being trampled by these 

guidelines and the narrow religious exemption. Numerous religious organizations 

and religious businessmen and women will now have no choice but to either 

violate their religious and conscientious objections, or drop their health insurance 

coverage for their employees, leading to great hardship for millions of employees 

and the families around the nation not to mention face fines for not providing 

health insurance.

Having set forth the problem, I will now demonstrate specifically how the 

proposed religious exemption is illegally narrow.

1. The Proposed Religious Exemption violates the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act

President Clinton signed into law and Congress enacted the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) in response to Employment 

Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Congress wanted to ensure that 

religious freedom maintained a constitutionally high degree of protection.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 

U.S. 507 (1997) that the RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the 

states, it is still in force as applied to the federal government’s actions. 

See Gonszales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 

U.S. 418 (2006).

The RFRA reads at 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1:

(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a 

person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule 

of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this 

section.

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s 

exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the 

burden to the person-

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling 
governmental interest.

How will HHS’ proposed religious exemption withstand scrutiny under 

Clinton’s RFRA? HHS must draft a new religious exemption – one which 

protects the religious freedom rights of ALL employers – in order to avoid 

legal challenges and ultimately defeat for this illegally narrow proposed 

religious exemption.

2. The Proposed Religious Exemption does not protect ordinary 

employers who have sincerely held religious beliefs

The proposed religious exemption requires an employer to meet all four 

requirements of the religious exemption in order to be exempted from 

having to provide coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

But the very first problem is readily apparent – there are many businesses 

whose owners have strong religious beliefs, but the business or the 

employees are unable to fit into the narrow criteria set forth to obtain the 

exemption.

Our nation was built on a foundation of religious freedom. Our founders 

fled to these shores so that they could worship (or not worship) according 

to the dictates of their conscience. The proposed religious exemption – by 

virtue of its narrowness – shows bigotry against business men and women 

of faith. 

3. The Proposed Religious Exemption does not protect Religious 

organizations

There are many religious employers (religious or faith-based 

organizations, religious primary/secondary schools, colleges and 

universities, etc) which do meet the first two criteria of the proposed 

religious exemption; they have the inculcation of religious values as their 

primary purpose and primarily employ persons who share their religious 

tenets. However, very few religious organizations meet the third 

requirement, which is that the entity primarily serves persons who share 

its religious tenets because most are motivated by their faith to reach out 

to and serve people and groups who do not share their religious tenets. 

Every single major world religion teaches that adherents should help those 

who are suffering, or who are disadvantaged, in other words be a “Good 

Samaritan”

4. The Proposed Religious Exemption specifically only applies to 

churches and other houses of worship
In addition to the problems raised above, the fourth criteria of the 

proposed religious exemption makes it abundantly clear that only houses 

of worship meet the requirements due to the constraining non-profit status 

of said organization.

As a result, it does not matter that the previous three criteria of the 

proposed religious exemption would eliminate most religious employers, 

organizations, and others. The fourth criteria makes it abundantly clear 

that the federal government only believes it is necessary to protect houses 

of worship.

This is unconscionable. As stated above, all religious and conscientious 

employers should be protected, not just churches and other houses of 

worship.

Conclusion: protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of 

conscience for all Americans

When Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and resident Obama signed the bill into law, the intent was to ensure that 

all Americans have health coverage, not to force religious employers into 

a Hobson’s choice between violating their religious convictions or ending 

their insurance plans for their employees and face fines.

In keeping with this intent, we urge HHS to adopt a robust religious 

exemption that will allow all employers who have religious and 

conscientious objections to providing birth control drugs or abortioninducing drugs to their employees to opt out of the new HRSA guidelines. 

This religious exemption should also specifically exempt all religious 

organizations under section 501(C) of the IRS code.

If HHS adopts these common sense suggestions for a new religious 

exemption, it will demonstrate that the Department and the Obama 

Administration want to protect the religious freedom of all citizens in the 

United States.

Sincerely,

Kimberley Stoddard