Posted on 09/12/2016 6:05:35 PM PDT by marshmallow
The bishops said the rights of people with religious objections to contraception should be protected
A September 9 letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) officials to the Department of Health and Human Services stressed that a compromise could effectively be reached in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive requirement.
The letter, in response to the US government’s request for comments on a proposal mandating contraceptive coverage, echoed the Supreme Court’s May 16 decision in Zubik vs Burwell — the combined lawsuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, and several other religious groups, that said providing contraception coverage to employees through their insurance plans violated their religious beliefs.
The court sent the cases back to the lower courts saying religious employers and the government should be “afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”
For this accommodation to happen, the USCCB letter stressed that “any government-mandated contraceptive coverage must be truly independent of petitioners and their plans,” meaning the coverage should be offered by a separate communication and with a different policy, enrolment process, insurance card and payment source.
The letter, signed by members of the USCCB’s general counsel, also said such coverage should not be automatic in order to protect the conscience rights of people with religious objections to contraception and sterilisation coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
What’s the compromise between life and death?
No, we need 5 billion new babies in Africa and 10 billion more in the middle east. What are you thinking? How else will the meek and abusive overtake the working intelligent?
I am wearying of your tedious malice toward babies.
Huh? The article is about the laws regarding socialized medicine in the USA and the right of a church, in the USA, to choose to not pay for specific practices it believes are immoral or detrimental to human rights and dignity. IOW, it’s about freedom of religion and conscience, specifically in the USA, and the Federal Govt’s interference with it.
If you want to find fault with the bishops, you have a good argument from another angle: they fully endorsed Obamacare and were instrumental in passing it into law. Now they are victims of it like the rest of us.
They choose to be dignified and not get in the muck with the slimy dems..Dems knew this and used it to their advantage..Where are the priests and bishops who fight to the death for the faith..What is it to them???Just a job????
Many folks who are pro-choice/pro-abortion are anti-death-penalty. It is usually a source of confusion for them when some dunce like myself asks what an unborn baby has done to merit the death penalty. It is only momentary - they reject the premise that the unborn baby is a real baby. But some of them get rattled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.