Murphy: Obama birth-control shift is flawed

William F. Murphy is bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre. A version of this piece appears in The Long Island Catholic newspaper.

On Friday, President Barack Obama announced that he had worked out "accommodations" to respond to the legitimate concerns about religious freedom that Catholic bishops and faithful, along with many others, have been raising to regulations that mandate coverage of artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs in virtually all health plans as of August 2013.

Hopeful as always that truth and common sense would prevail, many of us watched his announcement with mounting disappointment. Putting aside some of the president's remarks that reinterpreted what he has actually said to officials of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Obama raised more difficulties than he claimed he had resolved. While there still may be some hope that meetings with administration officials might clarify some of the issues, the leadership of the bishops -- and I -- remain dissatisfied, determined to continue the effort to protect religious freedom and freedom of conscience not only for Catholics but for all Americans.

Put simply, we bishops are more convinced than ever that we need legislative guarantees of religious freedom in the face of this administration's continued effort to force coverage of religiously objectionable procedures as part of a mandate for all Americans, regardless of their religious or conscience reservations. Without ironclad guarantees, which to date have not been given, we will continue to work for the repeal of the mandate.

The administration continues to insist on an overly narrow definition of which people and institutions can exercise the right of conscience or religious belief. This is problematic. The definition in itself is objectionable, because government has no right to determine what beliefs will be afforded the right of free exercise -- the Constitution guarantees this freedom to all.

Also, the administration's narrow definition leaves out untold numbers of people who will be forced to violate their conscience and their beliefs, or else be subject to stiff penalties.

It remains unclear how the shift of responsibility to cover these objectionable products and services from the employer to the insurer will be paid for. The only logical conclusion is that the insurer will pass on the increased costs to the insured -- and we have the same objection as before: using the force of government to compel insureds to pay indirectly for products and services that violate the tenets of their faith is just as objectionable as compelling them to pay directly for these products and services.. Insurers that now offer plans that don't include these objectionable procedures will, if the mandate stands, have no choice but to offer them. Fidelis Health Care, the largest health maintenance organization providing coverage for the poor in New York, is a Catholic organization that has a corporate membership of the New York Catholic bishops. What happens here?

There are instances in which a religious organization is both employer and insurer. It seems that, notwithstanding the president's "accommodation," these religiously based institutions -- as well as student health plans at Catholic colleges -- would have to offer this objectionable coverage. One such self-insured religious body is the Diocese of Rockville Centre.

A whole other category of people who would be forced into violating their consciences would be Catholics and others who work in the secular sphere. Catholics who own businesses are forced by government into compliance, without any consideration for their religious convictions or conscientious objections.

When these regulations were presented on Jan. 20, we were informed that the religious organizations that would be exempt would be given a "grace period" until August 2013 to find out how we must comply. The president of our bishops conference, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, referred to this as a year to learn how to violate our consciences. That "grace period" now seems to have been changed to a yearlong "process" to determine which religious organizations or individuals qualify for the "accommodation." This is a grave concern. It reduces a God-given right, protected by the First Amendment, to a "privilege" to be negotiated with an administration that swore to uphold the Constitution.

The mandate and its support by the administration are deleterious to the life and liberty of citizens who should be able to live secure in the conviction that their religious freedom is not being undermined.

The clear assertion of religious liberty is a matter of justice this administration owes to all Americans. We need to pass the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act in the House and Senate. But we still may have to seek recourse in the courts because of the administration's intransigence. The right to religious freedom and its exercise are too valuable, too inalienable, too God-given, too essential for human freedom and dignity for us to let this mandate become the law of the land.