Posted on 05/28/2013 6:49:23 PM PDT by haffast
Despite his strong opposition to the portion of the new health care law that requires employers, including those with religious affiliations to cover birth control in employee health plans, the Archdiocese headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York has been quietly paying for birth control for more than a decade.
According to a report in The New York Times, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has "reluctantly and indirectly" been paying for health plans that cover birth control and "voluntary pregnancy termination" for thousands of its unionized employees for more than ten years – a position that could potentially weaken their legal argument on the national stage against complying with the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
"We provide the services under protest," Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, told the Times.
The report notes that the Archdiocese of New York had previously acknowledged that some local Catholic affiliates offered health insurance plans that covered birth control to comply with state law. This is the first time, however, that the institution has publicly acknowledged using its own money to pay for similar plans that even cover abortions for workers at associated clinics and nursing homes.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at global.christianpost.com ...
Well, then perhaps it’s time we stopped. The media thinks they will win on this issue because New York wags the rest of the nation.
I am shocked. And it takes alot to shock me....and btw..Steinbeck was right.
I can tell you for a FACT that it is NOT the case for teachers who work in for the Archdiocese.
Catholics supporting abortion ... say it ain’t so.
Yeah it bothers me too, but it’s good to get it out in the light so that we can kill this coverage.
I agree. It is good that it has been exposed. One is supposed to have the courage of its convictions. Thank you for posting this.
This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think it needs a little more examination.
For instance, it says that “hospitals” are part of the diocese. But I don’t know how true that is. At least some hospital systems are run by nuns and others who are in a dissident relationship with the Church. I don’t know if that is the case with New York, but I would suspect that it probably is.
The same with Catholic Colleges. The bishops don’t entirely control them, and some of them—Notre Dame and Georgetown being the best known examples—are also in a state of partial revolt from the Church. I’d say that would be true of Fordham in the Bronx, among others.
So, I would hesitate to believe that the Archdiocese has actually signed off on such insurance policies—especially morning-after contraceptives, which are a form of abortion.
So they caved.......not surprised.
There are a lot of things over which the diocese has no control, but that said, I never felt that Cdl Egan was particularly gung-ho on Catholic policies or at any rate, supporting them in any way that would be difficult for him.
As for Cdl Dolan, I’m increasingly disappointed by him.
This information, to my way of thinking, would nullify any lawsuit presenting opposition to Obamacare.
After all, you chose to obey the unjust law—instead of disbanding your church and leaving your flock in the lurch. I don't follow—logically, mind you—that this would "weaken" Dolan's argument in the least.
It's the scandal of someone trying to limit the amount of evil he's forced to commit that stirs the Red dragon's wrath.
“People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent.” Robert Zimmerman
Mayhap the church should have started their protest back in the day when such policies were enacted?
May 28, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2013
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY
Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.
“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.
What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.”
Why is everyone so surprised? The NYT hates the Catholic Church. They don’t call it the NY SLIMES for nothing.
May 28, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2013
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING IN RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY
Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.
“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.
What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.”
Why is everyone so surprised? The NYT hates the Catholic Church. They don’t call it the NY SLIMES for nothing.
No other option? Really?
Frankly, I'm confused by the bishops' objection to Obamacare.
The bishops want government control of health care. The bishops have pushed for years for government control of health care. Now the government controls health care and they're complaining?
Go figure.
Mayhap they did. This is New York. This kind of crap has been going on forever. Nobody hears you scream, as the expression goes. It's a Lefty trap to think you can't start opposing a worse evil that you can't live with, just because you've been putting up with a lesser one that you could.
There's something called the law of "double effect." If I'm the Church, and I decide that in order to maintain my service to Catholics in New York State, I have to insure my employees' health—because New York and the Feds require it, because they also unjustly require me to hire unionized workers. And New York State also requires that I offer my employees services that are evil. I'm hoping they won't take them, and I don't like the fact that, even if they don't, I'm paying into the premium pool that pays off fornicators and abortionists.
But that's not your purpose, it's a side-effect—which you oppose—of your lack of religious freedom in New York. Your purpose in the catacombs of New York is to be able to offer Mass, baptize, teach the ignorant, hear Confessions, bury the dead, and so on. Same as you pay income taxes, part of which goes to reimburse Planned Parenthood for offering 12-year-old girls "free" abortions without their parents' knowledge under Title X.
Everyone needs to do what he can. If the Church is standing up to fight 0bummer and the Democrats, I'm sure not going to tell them to sit down.
So, your saying that the church had to compromise in order to exist?
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.