Login
Our Sunday Visitor

Home  |  Contact Us  |  Subscribe/Renew  |  Register | Search | Site Map

Catalog
       Online Catalog
       Search the Catalog

Periodicals
       OSV Newsweekly
       The Catholic Answer
       My Daily Visitor
       The Priest
       Take Out
       Grace In Action
       Subscribe/Renew
       OSV Advertising Information
       Writer's Guidelines

Books
       Catholic Books and Products
       Mother Teresa's Secret Fire
       The Apostles by Pope Benedict XVI
       Fr. Groeschel Books & 50th Anniversary
       Book Resources and Downloads
       OSV's Catholic Almanac
       OSV Bestsellers
       OSV Author News
       Writer's Guidelines
       Order books online
       OSV 2009 Catalog (PDF)

Parish Resources
       Parish Products
       Vacation Bible School
       Pamphlets
       Parish Bestsellers
       FREE Parish Resources
       Parish Life! Enewsletter
       Order Catechetical Products
       Offering Envelopes

Offertory Solutions
       OSV Offertory Solutions
       Stewardship Services

About Us
       About OSV
       Employment at OSV
       Our Sunday Visitor Institute
       Archbishop John Noll
       OSV History
       Contact Us
       News Releases
Our Sunday Visitor
Newsletter signup
Log In


Forgot My Login Register
Advertisements
How to place a classified ad.
Learn about vocations
Visit the Religious Gifts Online Shoppe
Free for Catholics
Classified Advertising

Ruling: College discriminated against women by not covering birth control

Last Updated Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:00:04 AM


By Valerie Schmalz

Ruling: College wrong to not cover birth control

Belmont Abbey College could be test case of religious freedom in health care, education

Belmont Abbey College plans to fight a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that the Catholic college discriminated against female employees when it removed birth control as a prescription benefit from its health insurance plan two years ago. If necessary, Belmont Abbey President Dr. Bill Thierfelder said the North Carolina school would close rather than subvert its Catholic identity.

The battle is shaping up as a test case for whether religious institutions, particularly Catholic colleges that receive federal funds and admit and hire non-Catholics, have a right to exclude morally unacceptable health care options. Some also fear the federal ruling against the Benedictine liberal arts institution presages much worse scenarios for Catholic institutions if the House of Representative's 1,000-plus-page health care reform bill becomes law.

No compromise

"It is the clear, consistent, inconvertible, public, official, and authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization are actions that are intrinsically wrong and should not be undertaken because of their very nature," Thierfelder told Our Sunday Visitor, noting the college is among less than two dozen American Catholic colleges that have signed Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II's 1990 apostolic constitution requiring Catholic colleges to teach Church-approved Catholic theology. "As a Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey is not able and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church."

"There is no possible way that we will ever offer those services here. We will not offer them, we will not pay for them," he said. "There can be no compromise. I do not believe it would ever come to this, but if it was a case of that or closing the college, we would close the college."

'Dangerous precedent'

The EEOC ruling is based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination based on gender, among other factors. "By denying prescription contraceptives, respondent is discriminating based on gender because only females take prescription contraceptives," the July 30 EEOC letter stated and urged "informal conciliation" via the commission.

The title applies regardless of any federal funding, said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based organization devoted to defending religious liberty. He said the closer a college is to the Church's religious tenets in hiring, teaching and culture, the more defensible is its claim of religious exemption. The EEOC letter did not mention the religious nature of the college.

Belmont Abbey removed abortion, artificial contraception, tubal ligations and vasectomies from its employee health plan in December 2007 after a new employee discovered them in the Charlotte-area college's WellPath insurance plan.

Eight faculty members, six men and two women, filed complaints with the EEOC and the North Carolina Department of Insurance, charging gender discrimination. The original complaint objected to the loss of abortion and involuntary sterilization benefits as well but those were removed somewhere along the way, Thierfelder said, so the final EEOC ruling only addresses artificial contraceptive prescriptions. How six men employees were affected by gender discrimination in the case of birth control pills was not explained in the EEOC's July 30 letter to the college.

The insurance department first accepted Belmont Abbey's religious exemption, but after the The National Women's Law Center asked them to reconsider, the department responded back on March 13, 2008, stating that "as a state agency it is constitutionally prohibited from resolving disputes over ecclesiastical doctrine and religious tenets" and referred back to the judgment of WellPath, the insurance company, which had stated that it believed Belmont Abbey College met the statute's requirements of a religious institution. That effectively left the decision up to the EEOC.

OSV was not able to reach any of the complainants, but InsideHigherEd.com quoted associate philosophy professor Janet Blandford, who said she was a practicing Catholic who disagrees with Church teaching on birth control. "He's not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted brand," Blandford said of Thierfelder in a story published Aug. 11, saying she does not subscribe to the Church's teachings on birth control. "I'm staying. He's got to go."

"This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for Catholic employers that refuse insurance coverage for contraception. It has potential implications for all religious employers and could logically apply to abortion coverage," wrote Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, in an Aug. 10 letter to the U.S. bishops. The Virginia-based nonprofit is dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities.

Health reform tie

While 35 states mandate contraceptive coverage, there is no federal requirement for insurance plans to include it. Most large institutions, both corporations and colleges, self-insure under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), but many are also subject to some state guidelines. No state, or the federal government, requires abortion coverage. The annually renewed Hyde Amendment has prohibited most taxpayer-funded abortions since 1976.

"Are we worried about health care reform taking this and making it a thousand times worse? You betcha," said the Alliance Defense Fund's McCaleb.

"The college is confident that its actions ultimately will be found to be in compliance with all federal and state laws and with the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the college will be asking the EEOC to reconsider each of the current determinations it has made in connection with the charges filed against the college," Thierfelder said in a statement.

The whole case has larger implications, according to Thierfelder, who said the EEOC sent the college a March 12 letter and said the EEOC was closing its file on the issue "because it was unable to conclude that the college's decision to change the employee health plan violated the statute" and there was no finding of discrimination. Thierfelder said the case was then sent to Washington, D.C., which overruled the Charlotte EEOC office. Last month's ruling came as a surprise, and the college first heard about it when called by a reporter who had been supplied with the letter by one of the complainants, Thierfelder said.

"This is not just about Belmont Abbey. There is something bigger at stake here," Thierfelder said. "There is a bigger principle here as far as religious freedom -- what are we as Catholics going to be forced to do by our government?"

The EEOC also ruled in March that by publishing the names of the eight faculty members in a letter of explanation to the faculty that the college engaged in "retaliation" against them. Thierfelder said the college administration's response was to answer questions raised by college members who heard about the suit from the complainant faculty members. "In fact, I have First Amendment right to speak and defend our position and make sure we are not misrepresented and slandered," Thierfelder said.

Forced to comply

Belmont Abbey College is not the first institution targeted for its refusal to cover contraception. In 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not exclude contraception from its health plan because, under the California Women's Contraceptive Equity Act, it did not qualify as a religious employer since it employed non-Catholics and assisted non-Catholics via its social justice ministries. California Catholic Charities organizations now provide artificial contraception as a health benefit to their employees.

Case against contraception

The Catholic Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is a sin. In its glossary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The use of mechanical, chemical or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love."

In addition, many artificial contraceptives are "interceptors" which stop the implantation of the embryo, causing an early abortion, said Marie Hilliard, director of bioethics and public policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.

Valerie Schmalz is an OSV contributing editor.

Rate this:
Recent Comments
Bravo, President Thierfelder! As he stated, "There is a bigger principle here as far as religious freedom -- what are we as Catholics going to be forced to do by our government?" We should all be very, very concerned and unafraid to speak out on behalf of our religious rights.
Posted By: Heather Renshaw on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:59:00 PM
I wonder what other authorative teachings of the Cath. Church, Prof.Blandford does "not subscribe to". Does she not know that by refusing to accept such teaching, knowingly and willfuly, she has automatically excommunicated herself? She may be practicing but not a Catholic!
Posted By: William Onstein on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:45:47 PM
I would be interested in finding out the reasoning behind catholic charities to (forced) offer this health benefit. Would it all boil down to individual freedom? Is it of theology that every individual must choose and hence Church should only propose and cannot impose anything (such as not giving the health option of contraception and what not?).....
Posted By: H P on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:47:57 PM
Hey Notre Dame, Take a look at what a real Catholic school looks like. Way to go, BAC!
Posted By: John E on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:55:05 PM
I would rather have seen Catholic Charities close down and have the state of CA feel the loss of the services they provide, and have to deal with the increase, however minuscule, to the unemployment roles, than to have them capitulate to demands to go against Church teaching and add these benefits to insurance offerings. Harsh? Certainly! But no more harsh than when Jesus told us to pluck out offending eyes and cut off offending limbs... I'll be praying for President Thierfelder, Belmont Abbey College, and all concerned.
Posted By: Colleen Sheehy on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:45:23 PM
Isn't it odd that the California Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities had to provide contraceptive coverage because they hired "non-Catholics"? That means they should've hired only Catholics; but wouldn't THAT be discriminatory? hmmm
Posted By: George C on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:14:19 PM
They wouldn't dare try and do this to a Muslim institution!
Posted By: G C on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:17:29 PM
Since this is still a free country, the people who don't like their insurance coverage can look for a job elsewhere. It is a sad commentary on our country when the minority or the one who disagrees with Church teaching is always wrong. It is great to see a Catholic college really act Catholic!
Posted By: Roseann Quick on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:20:33 PM
Would it not be a powerful message if every Catholic institution that could find itself in a similar sitaution came out now with a public statement signed by all their heads that they fully supported the Colleges stand and would be taking the same stanceand in the meantime would fund an appeal against this judgement?
Posted By: Mary M on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:26:06 PM
Drop the "insurance" altogether and pay employees the difference?
Posted By: PJ B on Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:47:36 AM
I really want my son to look at this college. Good programs, soccer team and adherence to the teachings of the church. I will, however, caution him on taking a philosophy course with this professor. The school is now in a bind because if they choose not to renew her contract, she can sue under the Federal Whistleblower statues. Hurray for Belmont Abbey! My prayers are also with the professors who brought the suit.
Posted By: Wendy Holden on Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:57:18 AM
When you accept federal money, you agreed to play by their rules. You can't have it both ways, so let all Catholic institutions refuse all government money and then you can do what you want, or would you rather take the money and complain??? Also, I supported Notre Dame and still do.
Posted By: Lea Brown on Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:25:37 PM
"He's not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted form???????" How man forms of Catholicism are there? Last I knew, there is only one. Do it yourself Catholics are not Catholic. They are misguided when they think they can pick and choose what they like or don't like. Guess who is rejoicing at the expense of this poor, confused woman?
Posted By: Cheryl S on Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:55:04 PM
US News and World Report: 'According to a recent Gallup Poll, 78 percent of American Catholics support allowing Catholics to use birth control, 63 percent think priests should be able to marry, and 55 percent think women should be ordained as priests. Last week Gallup reported that more Catholics than non-Catholics believe that homosexual behavior, divorce, and stem-cell and human-embryo research are morally acceptable. "The paradox," says David Gibson, author of The Coming Catholic Church, "is that while [the pope] was enormously popular, he did not necessarily change behavior" of the lay people in America.
Posted By: Glaucon S on Saturday, September 05, 2009 7:23:52 AM
Advertisements
Israel Ministry of Tourism
Catholic Distance University
Share this page | email email | digg digg | technorati technorati | stumbleupon stumbleupon | facebook facebook | newsvine newsvine | google bookmarks google bookmarks | twitter twitter
Return to top

Read the Daily Take Blog

Friend & follow us!

Year for Priests Resources

 https://catalog.osv.com/lp.aspx?code=F81POWEB

Page

Advertisements
Advertisements
Veritas Polska
ProLife Across America
Catholic Charities
Sadlier Religion
Shrine Design Candle Stands
Food for the Poor on Facebook
Sienna Communications
St. Mary's Abbey

Catholic Faith Resources  |   For Catholic Parishes   |   Order OSV Products
Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Offertory Solutions | About Us | Contact Us
Send comments or questions to webmaster@osv.com  Click here for our site map.
Copyright © 2010, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.  All rights reserved.

 
OSV 4 Me homepage Parish homepage Retailer homepage