On March 1, a Senate vote defeated the amendment entitled “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” which would have overturned the HHS requirement requiring that employers provide insurance which many feel is a violation of their rights of conscience. Opponents to this requirement feel it is an egregious violation of religious freedom.

When I wrote Sen. Max Baucus to encourage him to support the amendment, he responded in writing by saying the following:

“Religious freedom is one of the most sacred and fundamental founding principles of our nation. It is critical that we respect religious freedom while providing cost-saving preventative health care services that are proven to have important health benefits for women. I will remain committed to protecting the religious liberties of all Americans while ensuring access to affordable health care.”

Sen. Baucus goes on to say that “churches and other houses of worship are expressly exempt from this rule.” Furthermore, he says “no woman will be forced to purchase insurance that provides coverage for contraceptive services.” It seems that this statement may be only partially true because the institutions in question can directly decline to cover contraceptives but indirectly they will be required to pay for the insurance coverage that does provide it.

Let’s see if I understand what I think he may be saying to me in this letter. First, it seems to be OK that we don’t force women to purchase insurance that covers contraception but it’s OK if we force hospitals, educational institutions, other employers and insurance companies to provide insurance that covers it even though it may violate their religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Second, he seems to be framing his debate as a women’s health issue even though it may violate the rights of others. This has become part of the talking points for those in favor of the HHS ruling.

The HHS rule also does not provide for the rights of religiously affiliated insurers and other private employers but instead forces them to provide the coverage in the policies they offer to the insured. Furthermore, it does not provide for the fact that many religious organizations are self-insured. This is a departure from current policy which, as I understand it, permits carriers to sell a health plan that excludes contraception even to federal workers if it violates the religious beliefs of the insurance provider.

It is interesting to note that in the Democrats’ 1994 proposed legislation commonly called Hillary-care, there was the exact same provision as provided in the language of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. The 1994 legislation said the following:

“Nothing in this title shall be construed to

“(1) prevent any individual from purchasing a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion services, if the individual objects to abortion on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction;

“(2) prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction;

“(3) require any health professional or health facility to perform or assist in the performance of any health care service, if the health professional or facility objects to performing or assisting in the performance of such a service on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction; and

“(4) require any commercial insurance company, Blue Cross plan, integrated health plan, or any other organization that assumes health insurance risk to offer a package including abortion or other services, if the health plan sponsor objects to covering such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction.”

I know of one large Catholic hospital in Bend, Ore., that happens to be a major health-care provider for much of Eastern and Central Oregon that could be directly hit by this requirement. It would be a shame if this large Eastern Oregon community were to lose a valuable service because of this HHS ruling.

Still is a resident of Kalispell.