Diocese of Greensburg challenges health care mandate in federal court
Roberto M. Esquivel|HeraldStandard
St. John the Evangelist Regional Catholic School of Uniontown along with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg and its bishop have sued the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury over mandatory insurance coverage.
Roberto M. Esquivel|HeraldStandard
St. John the Evangelist Regional Catholic School of Uniontown along with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, Bishop Brandt and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Greensburg, have sued the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury, claiming the regulation known as the “HHS Mandate” infringes on the Church’s religious liberty.
The Diocese of Greensburg has filed suit in federal district court against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury, claiming that a government mandate requiring Catholic charities and schools to provide insurance coverage for “objectionable services” infringes on religious liberty.
The suit was filed Tuesday by the Pittsburgh law firm Jones Day on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Greensburg and St. John the Evangelist Regional Catholic School of Uniontown.
The mandate in question, which falls under the Affordable Care Act, requires the church and its related entities to facilitate health insurance coverage that violates the church’s core Catholic beliefs, according to a statement released by the Diocese of Greensburg.
Starting July 1, the government requires health insurance plans of the Greensburg Diocese’s elementary schools and Catholic Charities to cover services such as abortifacient drugs, sterilization procedures, contraceptives and related education, and counseling or face crippling fines that could seriously jeopardize how they conduct their ministries, the suit states.
In November, a nearly identical suit involving the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie and their related entities ended with a judge from the same federal district court granting an injunction barring the government from enforcing the mandate to those dioceses.
Brandt noted that the Diocese of Greensburg attempted to join that legal action, but the court determined that the diocese was not at imminent risk of being harmed by the provisions of the mandate because the beginning of their health plan year was more than six months away.
“In other words, the courts, including the one that granted an injunction in the Pittsburgh and Erie cases, were looking for the plaintiffs to be just weeks away from imminent harm, not months away as we were in late 2013,” Brandt stated.
The government has provided an exemption from the mandate for “houses of worship,” including churches and dioceses. However, the exemption is not available for religious institutions within the diocese, such as schools, universities, social service agencies and hospitals.
“Because education is an integral component of the Catholic faith,” the suit states, “the diocese serves the community through its affiliated Catholic schools. The diocese’s Catholic schools include two high schools, two junior high schools, 13 elementary schools, and various preschool programs. These schools educate approximately 2,800 students.”
Currently, St. John School has approximately 210 students, according to the suit. St. John School employees, including 13 employees and six dependents, are insured under the diocesan plan. Despite being exempt from tax reporting obligations, St. John School does not currently qualify as a “religious employer” under the exemption to the mandate, the attorneys noted.
Catholic Charities, which also will not qualify as a religious employer, also has employees insured under the diocesan plan. About 18 employees are covered under the health plan, with a total of approximately 38 insured individuals, including dependents, the suit states.
Since accommodated, non-grandfathered entities, like Catholic Charities and St. John School, currently participate in a trust, or group health insurance plan administered by the diocese, the diocese will directly be facilitating coverage of the objectionable services for the employees participating in the trust, the attorneys wrote.
“The Diocese is now faced with the decision of whether to expel these accommodated entities from the trust.”
The suit accuses the government of bobbing and weaving around various legal challenges since 2011 by “saying whatever it needed to get by the moment, promising courts around the country on record that it would resolve the concerns that plaintiffs have raised over the years, and inviting public comments and representing that it would take these comments seriously.”
“But, despite all that it said, and all that has happened, the government has finalized a rule that respects nothing, resolves nothing, and attempts to confine what constitutes one’s practice of faith to the four corners, bricks and mortar of a house of worship,” the suit states.
In a statement released to the media, Brandt said, “We have no choice but to take this legal action in order to protect our religious freedom.”
“Understand that this is not a matter of the Catholic church’s trying to force its views on the rest of the country,” he said. “Individuals are free to buy and use contraception; employers are free to cover it in the health insurance they sponsor; and insurers are free to write policies covering it. The Supreme Court settled that a long time ago. The church is not contesting those facts. What we are facing is the federal government trying to force its views on the church.”
“In addition,” Brandt added, “this is not an attempt to overturn health-care reform. The Catholic bishops have always supported access to health-care coverage for all, as long as the conscience rights and religious freedom of people and groups, including the Catholic church, are protected. They are not protected as the law now stands.”