Panel discussion considers church’s role in healthcare

Leah Small
Capital News Service

Tempers flared at a panel discussion hosted by VCU Tuesday night concerning religious exemptions in the health plans of certain institutions for providing contraceptives.

These exemptions are a part of a four-part test established by a federal mandate that would require Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies to provide free insurance coverage for contraceptives.

In order to be exempt, a group’s primary objective must be the “inculcation of religious values.” It must also hire and serve people who primarily share the same religious tenets. Churches are also exempt.

Hospitals and other groups run by Catholic organizations are not exempt. Many states do require Catholic hospitals and other institutions to provide coverage for contraceptives, but Virginia is not one of those states.

“It is clear from the outset that Jesus and his disciples would not have met this test,” said panelist Jeffrey Caruso, executive director of the Catholic Conference.

During a Q-and-A session a man from the audience responded to Caruso’s comment by saying that religion has no place in health policy.

“I don’t think Jesus and his disciples are the best group to make that decision since they are all men,” he said.

Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond and Planned Parenthood lobbyist Karen Rascheke, argued that the Obama administration reached the correct balance between freedom of religion and women’s rights in the exemptions.

Caruso and William Hurd, adjunct professor at the George Mason University law school, made the point that the exemptions impeded freedom of religion and had a narrow definition of what qualified as a religious institution with the right to not cover contraceptives.

Hurd said that the federal government was overstepping its boundaries.

“The government is not making sure that women have the right to use contraceptives,” he said. “Instead the interest is providing free contraceptives. … It may be an important objective, but it is not a compelling enough to justify violating religious liberty.”

Caruso asserted that the mandate encroached on the Catholic exercise of religious freedom. “It is intrusive because it seeks to define what constitutes a religious ministry and who is religious enough. … It’s coercive; it forces people to act against their faith and the church to act against church teachings,” he said.

He also went on to say that the financial burden of birth control, which he claimed was an average of $9 a month, was not significant.

Many women in the audience began to raise objections and cited much higher figures.

Sarah Ahmed, an international studies and political science major at VCU, said that the birth control she took for medical reasons is a financial burden for her every month.

“I’m in college, so that’s food” she said. “I don’t think faith-based institutions should have a problem with (contraceptive coverage) because they serve people of all faiths.”

McClellan said that Catholic institutions were not considering the fact that many women use contraceptives for health reasons in their focus on conception.

“What gets lost in the debate is that birth control pills and sterilization procedures are not only used to prevent pregnancy. They are also used to treat women’s health issues,” she said.

The discussion’s last remarks were made by Diane Hamilton, a self-described Catholic and small business owner. She was unhappy with the mandate’s exemptions because she felt that they would contradict her religious beliefs by not allowing her to deny her employees coverage of contraceptives.

Hamilton said that she would be upfront about an employee’s health benefits package before he or she were hired. She and her husband are also investigating the alternative to not offer insurance at all.

She also asserts that her desire to not cover contraceptives would not impede an employee’s access to them: “There are multiple clinics where there is access; that is not an issue.”