Obama Admin Told to Rescind Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Jun 18, 2012   |   1:38PM   |   Washington, DC

More pro-life groups are telling the Obama Administration, in official comments before the comment period on the proposal closes, to rescind the controversial HHS mandate forcing religious groups to pay for birth control and abortion drugs for their employees.

Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser and Charlotte Lozier Institute president Chuck Donovan submitted a joint comment to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services condemning the Preventative Services Mandate because of its impact on groups with non-religious objections.

In the comment, the pro-life groups request that HHS either rescind or amend the portion of the mandate that requires insurance coverage for contraception so that the mandate no longer compels the inclusion of abortifacient drugs and measures. If that portion must remain, the pro-life groups insist that the Administration broaden the current accommodation of conscience rights to include all entities and individuals with ethical and moral, and not just religious, objections.

“Forcing pro-life organizations to be directly responsible for providing insurance programs which cover abortion-inducing drugs is an assault on conscience regardless of religion,” said Dannenfelser. “Coverage for abortion-inducing drugs such as ella is not preventative women’s healthcare.  This intrusion on rights of conscience by the Obama Administration claiming concern for ‘women’s rights or human rights’ puts dangerous ideology over liberty.”

“Not only does the Administration’s so called ‘accommodation’ for religious entities not go far enough to protect religious liberty, it does not address the conscience protections needed by non-religious groups actively working to uphold the right to life,” added Donovan.  “In order to maintain the moral coherence of our missions, we refuse to purchase insurance or otherwise participate in any insurance plan that includes coverage for interventions or procedures that destroy or otherwise imperil innocent human beings.  The idea that we, or our insurers, are not really paying for these procedures because of the ‘cost-savings’ of abortifacients is repugnant in the first place.”



Full text of the comment, submitted on behalf of its signers by Daniel Avila, J.D., can be read here.