Missouri’s Blaine amendments are some of the strictest in the nation and have been cited by courts to deny many secular services to non-public school children such as textbooks and bus transportation.

A constitutional lawyer from the Freedom Center of Missouri, Dave Roland, gave committee members a brief account of the sordid history of anti-Catholic and Know-Nothing sentiment that led to the adoption of Blaine amendments in the 1870s. He said passage of SJR 47 would allow the general assembly to consider enacting programs that assist all school children so long as those programs comply the church-state requirements of the First Amendment.

The MCC’s general counsel Tyler McClay also testified in favor of SJR 47. The committee took no action on the legislation.

Among the witnesses testifying for HB 1520 was Ginger Masters of Columbia whose husband was murdered seven years ago. She told the committee that an execution would not bring closure to her pain and knew other murder victim family members who shared her belief. Paula Skillicorn, whose husband Dennis was executed in 2009, told the committee of the emotional toll the execution put on corrections workers and families of the condemned. Other witnesses highlighted problems with the death penalty including its cost, risk of mistakes and disparity of use.

In testifying in support of HB 1520 the Missouri Catholic Conference reminded the committee of the Catholic Church’s long opposition to the use of the death penalty because it disregards the dignity of human life and continues a cycle of violence.

The committee took no action on HB 1520 which was co-sponsored by 44 other representatives.

If the president won’t uphold Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience, state and federal lawmakers must step in and do what is right.

So stated Bishop John R. Gaydos of Jefferson City on Feb. 14, in testimony before a state Senate committee.

The bishop was testifying in favor of a bill to prevent insurers in Missouri from being forced to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

“This legislation will place in state law a strong and clear prohibition on government infringement on religious liberty, and send a strong message to Congress that Missouri opposes the federal government trampling on our religious freedoms,” Bishop Gaydos stated.

Testifying before the Senate’s Committee on Small Business, Insurance and Industry, Bishop Gaydos expressed the Missouri Catholic bishops’ strong united support for Senate Bill 749, sponsored by state Sen. John Lamping (R-St. Louis).

SB 749 states that no employer or health plan shall be required to provide health coverage for abortion, contraception or sterilization if such items are contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the employer.

The proposed legislation also would prevent the government from discriminating against or penalizing an employer or health plan for refusing to provide such coverage. Under the bill, individuals could not be forced to purchase health plans that include coverage for abortion, contraception or sterilization if such items violate their religious or moral beliefs.

“Passage of this legislation, and (of similar) federal legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt (of Missouri) and co-sponsored by many Missouri congresspersons, is absolutely imperative at this time,” Bishop Gaydos stated.

State Sen. Lamping is a member of Our Lady of the Pillar parish in St. Louis.

His bill is a response to the Jan. 20 announcement that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will require all employee health plans, including those funded by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, to pay for contraceptives, sterilization procedures and abortion-inducing drugs.

Federal regulators announced the requirement as part of ongoing implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010.
Employers were told they would be given a year to begin offering co-pay-free contraception and sterilization coverage. Heavy fines will be assessed for employers that fail to do so.

The announcement of the HHS mandate brought swift condemnation from a broad spectrum of leaders inside and outside the Church, because the mandate would force employers to pay for drugs and procedures that many find objectionable to their consciences.

The federal mandate does include a religious exception, but it is too narrow to cover most Catholic institutions such as hospitals, universities and social-services providers that employ and serve many non-Catholics.

In response to the vocal and united opposition to the HHS’ contraceptive mandate, the Obama Administration on Feb. 10 announced what it called a compromise plan, in which employers would not be forced to pay for contraceptive services that violate their consciences. But their health insurers would be required to pay for those services.

Catholic leaders — including Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — said the president’s compromise would not address the most important concerns. The Church would still be forced to be an agent of providing services that specifically go against its teachings.

Bishop Gaydos told the Senate committee that “this so-called ‘compromise’ falls far short of protecting the religious liberties our citizens so rightly cherish.”

By contrast, he stated, SB 749 would go a long way toward protecting the religious liberties not just of Church employers but of all employers in the state.
He said the Catholic bishops are gratified by the strong solidarity shown by so many churches during the recent threat to religious liberty.

“We are also deeply appreciative of the many people who have come to the defense of the Church’s ministry through its schools, hospitals and charities,” he said.

He acknowledged that while the Church could avoid a conflict with the new federal regulations by offering health care, education and charity only to Catholics, doing so would be diametrically opposed to what it means to be Roman Catholic.

“Since the founding of our nation, the Church has sought to provide care for the sick, the orphan and the very poor,” said Bishop Gaydos. “Our faith requires us to reach out to all people in need, not just Catholics. This is our mission. We will not retreat from it.”

He said that if Church leaders have learned anything in recent weeks, it is that federal regulators cannot be trusted to safeguard Americans’ religious liberties.

“Without clear guidance from the new federal health care law, regulators proceeded to write a rule that violates the moral and religious convictions of Americans,” he said.

He emphasized that the key issue is not the Church’s teaching on abortion or birth control.

“The real question is whether or not the Church — as well as other religious bodies — should have the freedom to proclaim her teaching publicly and to practice it in a nation founded on the right to religious liberty,” he said.

The bishop urged lawmakers to act quickly to pass SB 749.

“Assault on religious liberty”

State Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville), the committee chairman, thanked the bishop for his testimony.

“I wholeheartedly agree that this transcends some of the talking points we are hearing,” said Sen. Rupp, a member of St. Patrick parish in Wentzville. “This really is just about a full frontal assault on religious liberty, the like of which we haven’t seen in my lifetime.”

“Religious liberties are facing their greatest threat in literally generations in America,” said Terry Messer, testifying on behalf of Missouri Baptist Convention, in favor of the bill.

He said the debate is as much about individual religious freedom as it is about liberty for religious institutions.

“We are very concentrated about individuals having the right to live under the concepts and the convictions of their own heart, their own faith — whether they’re Baptist, whether they’re Catholic or whether they’re anything else,” he said.

Also testifying in favor of the bill were: Joanne Schrader, a member of St. Peter parish in Fulton; and representatives of Missouri Right to Life, Campaign Life Missouri, the Missouri chapter of Women of America and the Missouri Family Policy Council.

Testifying against the bill were representatives from Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

After the hearing, the Senate committee approved the bill and forwarded it to the full Senate for consideration.

Listen to Bishop Gaydos’ testimony here.

Read Archbishop Carlson’s statement on the so-called compromise from the Obama administration on the abortion-drug mandate here.

Prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, sheriffs, as well as representatives from crime victims groups and the Department of Corrections all testified in support of the bill. Some of the main provisions of the bill include using short-term jail sanctions for technical violations, earning credits to reduce an offender’s time of supervision and mandatory placement in a 120-day program for a revocation of probation or parole. Supporters noted that this was an important step for Missouri to be smarter on crime.

The MCC joined the chorus of bill supporters by noting that HB 1525 embodied Catholic teaching on restorative justice by holding offenders accountable, addressing the harm to victims and involving the community in restoring the offender. No organization spoke in opposition to the bill.

The House Committee plans to vote HB 1525 out of the committee next week.

Furthermore, the law, formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ceded too much authority to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). For example, the law authorized HHS to develop a list of what items would be considered “preventive services.”

Planned Parenthood and their allies then lobbied HHS to include contraceptives, sterilization procedures and abortion drugs as “preventive services.” According to these “reproductive rights” advocates birth control pills are like vaccines that prevent a disease. In addition, they denied any contraceptive could induce abortion, which is simply not true.

The Obama “compromise” on the HHS mandate – regardless of whether it turns out to be ethically acceptable – is only a stop-gap response to the concern. What really needs to happen is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act needs to be fully revised to protect rights of conscience and religious liberty. That is why it remains critical that Congress pass S.1467 (sponsored by Senator Blunt), and H.R. 1179, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin, Rep. Sam Graves, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, Rep. Billy Long and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer.

In his speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Blunt said “This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles, and whether it’s faith principles that are part of a health care delivery system that could be through any number of different faith groups – and I’ve talked to a lot of them.”

Watch Sen. Blunt attempt to introduce the amendment below or go here.

To read his amendment, please click here.

I’ll continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we reverse this unconstitutional mandate in its entirety.”

Click here to read the USCCB’s response to President Obama’s statement.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

Two short weeks ago, on Jan. 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that virtually all health plans provided by virtually all employers, including those affiliated with the Catholic Church, would now be forced to cover sterilization procedures, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Under the Obama Administration’s unprecedented rule, the federal government would force the Church to include these illicit “services” in many of its insurance plans and help cover their cost.

The immediate, popular uproar against this unacceptable infringement by the federal government on religious liberty is absolutely appropriate. For two thousand years, the Church has consistently taught that abortion and contraception are wrongs that strike right at the dignity of the human person. This is not a matter of the mere opinion of a few bishops or theologians. Now, the federal government would force the Church to negotiate with insurance companies for this coverage, to purchase it and pay for actions it considers immoral. The question is not whether all Americans agree with the Church’s teaching on these matters. The real question is whether the Church—as well as other religious bodies—should have the freedom to proclaim her teaching and to practice it in a nation founded on the right to religious liberty.

In the few days since the release of the HHS rule, protests against the Administration’s infringement on religious liberty have united people of all faiths and people of good will across America. The impact is real. So now there are rumors of a possible “compromise.” If the name of the compromise is referral, it may run something like this: “We won’t make you include these services in your health plans, and you might not even have to pay for them. All you have to do is tell folks where they can go to get them. Just refer them to a local provider, and that should do it.”

Hawaii is used as an example.

In that state, employers are mandated to cover contraception (though not sterilization), and there is a slightly broader religious exemption, but it also imposes certain requirements on those who would claim the exemption: they must provide written notification to employees of other ways they can directly access coverage for, or obtain, such procedures “in an expeditious manner.”

If such a solution were proposed, it would not address the basic problem– that of the law forcing religious entities into actions they consider immoral. The Church cannot, even reluctantly, provide information, make arrangements for, facilitate, counsel or instruct people on how to obtain these immoral procedures. To do so would be to participate in the violation of the moral law and thus to act against conscience.

And so religious liberty remains front and center. The Church must have the freedom to refuse to cooperate in any way in making these “services” available. It comes down to this: If we provide the means for another to act against the moral law, we ourselves become morally culpable as well. We simply cannot and will not do that. The doctor simply cannot say, “Well, I will not kill your unborn child but let me send you to Dr. Smith who will.” Referral under these conditions is simply wrong.

The best solution is this: restore religious liberty by rescinding the mandate.

This article is used with permission from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.