[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

LINES CROSSED: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. HAS THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TRAMPLED ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE?

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

FEBRUARY 16, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-122

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-614 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on February 16, 2012................................ 1
Statement of:
Garvey, John H., president, the Catholic University of
America; William K. Thierfelder, president, Belmont Abbey
College; Samuel W. ``Dub'' Oliver, president, East Texas
Baptist University; Allison Dabbs Garrett, senior vice
president for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma Christian
University; and Laura Champion, M.D., medical director,
Calvin College Health Services............................. 116
Champion, Laura.......................................... 153
Garrett, Allison Dabbs................................... 147
Garvey, John H........................................... 116
Oliver, Samuel W. ``Dub''................................ 141
Thierfelder, William K................................... 134
Lori, Reverend William E., Roman Catholic Bishop of
Bridgeport, CT, chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious
Liberty, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Reverend Dr.
Matthew C. Harrison, president, the Lutheran Church,
Missouri Synod; C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Graves professor of
moral philosophy, Union University; Rabbi Meir Soloveichik,
director, Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought,
Yeshiva University, Associate Rabbi, Congregation Kehilath
Jeshurun; and Craig Mitchell, Ph.D., associate professor of
ethics, Chair, Ethics Department, associate director of the
Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary............................... 38
Harrison, Reverend Dr. Matthew C......................... 44
Lori, Reverend William E................................. 38
Mitchell, C. Ben......................................... 48
Mitchell, Craig.......................................... 58
Soloveichik, Rabbi Meir.................................. 52
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Champion, Laura, M.D., medical director, Calvin College
Health Services, prepared statement of..................... 155
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, information concerning Catholic
Institutions that provide contraceptive coverage........... 127
Garrett, Allison Dabbs, senior vice president for Academic
Affairs, Oklahoma Christian University, prepared statement
of......................................................... 149
Garvey, John H., president, the Catholic University of
America, prepared statement of............................. 119
Harrison, Reverend Dr. Matthew C., president, the Lutheran
Church, Missouri Synod, prepared statement of.............. 46
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Information conerning Catholic Charities USA................. 6
Letter dated Februay 15, 2012................................ 8
Record of dialog............................................. 34
Lori, Reverend William E., Roman Catholic Bishop of
Bridgeport, CT, chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious
Liberty, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, prepared
statement of............................................... 41
Mitchell, C. Ben, Ph.D., Graves professor of moral
philosophy, Union University, prepared statement of........ 50
Mitchell, Craig, Ph.D., associate professor of ethics, Chair,
Ethics Department, associate director of the Richard Land
Center for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, prepared statement of................ 60
Oliver, Samuel W. ``Dub'', president, East Texas Baptist
University, prepared statement of.......................... 143
Quigley, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, information concerning JFK's speech on
his religion............................................... 86
Soloveichik, Rabbi Meir, director, Straus Center for Torah
and Western Thought, Yeshiva University, Associate Rabbi,
Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, prepared statement of...... 54
Thierfelder, William K., president, Belmont Abbey College,
prepared statement of...................................... 137
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, prepared statement of the National
Health Law Program......................................... 69

LINES CROSSED: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. HAS THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TRAMPLED ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE?

----------

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Burton, Turner, McHenry,
Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Buerkle, Gosar,
DesJarlais, Walsh, Gowdy, Ross, Farenthold, Kelly, Cummings,
Towns, Maloney, Norton, Kucinich, Tierney, Clay, Connolly,
Quigley, Davis, and Murphy.
Also present: Representatives Mulvaney and DeLauro.
Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Alexia
Ardolina, Will L. Boyington, Drew Colliatie, and Nadia A.
Zahran, staff assistants; Kurt Bardella, senior policy advisor;
Brien A. Beattie, Brian Blase, and Ryan Little, professional
staff members; Michael R. Bebeau and Gwen D'Luzansky, assistant
clerks; Robert Borden, general counsel; Molly Boyl,
parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, staff director; Sharon
Casey, senior assistant clerk; John Cuaderes, deputy staff
director; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and
committee operations; Linda Good, chief clerk; Justin LoFranco,
deputy director of digital strategy; Mark D. Marin, director of
oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, deputy chief counsel,
investigations; Laura L. Rush, deputy chief clerk; Rebecca
Watkins, press secretary; Kevin Corbin, minority deputy clerk;
Ashley Etienne, minority director of communications; Susanne
Sachsman Grooms, minority chief counsel; Jennifer Hoffman,
minority press secretary; Carla Hultberg, minority chief clerk;
Adam Koshkin, minority staff assistant; Una Lee, Brian Quinn,
and Ellen Zeng, minority counsels; Suzanne Owen, minority
health policy advisor; Dave Rapallo, minority staff director;
and Mark Stephenson, minority director of legislation.
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order.
The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental
principles. First, America has a right to know that the money
Washington takes from them is well spent; and, second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works
for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility
is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because
taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their
government. Our responsibility is to work tirelessly in
partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the
American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy.
Today's hearing is a solemn one. It involves freedom of
conscience. Ultimately, without the first pillar of our
freedoms, the freedoms that we did not give up to our
government, the American democracy and the experiment that has
lasted over 200 years falls for no purpose. The architects of
our Constitution believed our country would be a place that
would accommodate all religions. In fact, they could not agree
on religion more than anything else.
Our Founding Fathers came from different religions, and
they did not trust that one religious order would not
circumvent another, for, in fact, many came from a country in
which they were of one religion and had to change to another on
a government edict.
Many looked at establishment of religion as all it is
about, but ultimately our Founding Fathers, including Thomas
Jefferson, including George Washington and others, all
understood that, in fact, their conscience was their guide, and
their conscience came overwhelmingly from their religious
convictions, and therefore time and time again they made it
clear that a man's conscience, particularly if it flowed from
his faith, had a special role in our freedoms.
I might note, not for a subject that many would bring up
today, but that, in fact, since our founding, men primarily,
and now men and women, can refuse to serve under arms for
reasons of personal conviction stemming from their faith. There
is no greater obligation than to serve your country in time of
war, but, in fact, our country for hundreds of years has
understood that faith comes first, and that no man or woman
should ever be forced to betray that faith.
Many will frame today not as First Amendment, but about the
particular issue that comes before us related to the Obama
health care plan. This is not about that. In fact, if it is
about that, we should be over in the Energy and Commerce
Committee or some committee dealing with health or other
issues. This committee wants to fully vet with the most
knowledgeable of both clergy and lay people that we could find
the real questions of where does faith begin, and where does it
end; where does government's ability to influence decisions
made by people of faith begin, and where does it end. These
basic questions go to the heart of the Constitution.
I recognize that there will be people who do not like the
outcome of any decision involving the Constitution, whether it
is the Miranda warning related to self-incrimination, whether
it is, in fact, a free press able to denounce people in
government or others; whether it is one after another of the
Bill of Rights or other items so entrenched in the
Constitution. Many of them are objectionable to others. But let
us understand, inalienable rights flow from all of us, whether
we are in the majority or an incredibly small minority. That
ultimately is what we are going to discuss today.
I expect that we will hear from people who have spent their
entire life pondering these very questions of faith and
conscience. I expect we will meet in the second panel
particularly from people who must execute both faith and often
education and other responsibilities that have fallen to church
and churchlike groups since our founding.
I take this as very solemn. I know that all of us on the
panel do. The tone today is about learning and listening, and I
certainly hope all of us who came here, including the students
who are in the audience today, recognize how important this
juncture in our democracy is.
With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As the son of two Pentecostal ministers from a small church
in Baltimore, I understand the position of the religious
community on this issue. I know both through my faith and my
legal training that we have an obligation as a Nation to make
accommodations when appropriate to avoid undue interference
with the practice of religion.
But there is another core interest we must consider, and
that is the interest of women. The pill has a profound impact
on their well-being, far more than any man in this room can
possibly know. It has allowed women to control their lives and
make very personal decisions about how many children to have
and when to have them.
I think everyone understands what is going on here today.
The chairman is promoting a conspiracy theory that the Federal
Government is conducting a war against religion. He stacked the
hearing with witnesses who agree with his position. He has not
invited Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities,
Catholics United or a host of other Catholic groups that praise
the White House for making the accommodation they made last
week. He also has refused to allow a minority witness to
testify about the interests of women who want safe and
affordable coverage for basic preventive health care, including
contraception.
In my opinion, this committee commits a massive injustice
by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across
this country are meaningless or worthless or irrelevant to the
debate. For these reasons I yield the rest of my time to the
Congresswoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Elijah. I know firsthand of your
deep faith, and I know you place tremendous value on your faith
and on open dialog, so I appreciate your efforts to get a more
balanced hearing today.
What I want to know is where are the women? When I look at
this panel, I don't see one single woman representing the tens
of millions of women across the country who want and need
insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services,
including family planning. Where are the women?
Mr. Chairman, I was deeply disturbed that you rejected our
request to hear from a woman, a third-year student at
Georgetown Law School named Sandra Fluke. She hoped to tell
this committee about a classmate of hers who was diagnosed with
a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts. Her doctor prescribed a
pill to treat this disease, but her student insurance did not
cover it. Over several months, she paid out hundreds of dollars
in out-of-pocket costs until she could no longer afford her
medication, and she eventually ended up losing her ovary. Your
staff told us you personally rejected Ms. Fluke's testimony,
saying, ``The hearing is not about reproductive rights and
contraception.''
Of course this hearing is about rights, contraception and
birth control. It is about the fact that women want to have
access to basic health services, family planning through their
health insurance plan. But some would prevent them from having
it by using lawsuits and ballot initiatives in dozens of States
to roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the
government thought what happened in the bedroom was their
business and contraceptives were illegal. Tens of millions of
us who are following these hearings lived through those times,
and I can tell you with great certainty we will not be forced
back to that dark and primitive era.
This is why last week the administration announced a
commonsense accommodation. Churches do not have to provide
insurance coverage for contraceptives. They do not have to
approve them. They do not have to prescribe them, dispense them
or use them. But women will have the right to access them.
Women who work at nonprofit religious entities like hospitals
and universities will be able to obtain coverage directly from
their insurance companies; not from religious organizations,
but from independent insurance companies. Medical and health
experts support this policy, economists support it, and a host
of Catholic groups that were conspicuously not invited to
testify today.
The vast majority of women, including women of faith, use
some form of birth control at some point in their lives,
whether to plan the number or spacing of their children or to
address significant medical conditions. With all due respect to
religious leaders, though you have every right to follow your
conscience and honor the dictates of your faith, no one should
have the power to impose their faith on others, to bend them to
your will, simply because they happen to work for you. That in
itself is an assault on the fundamental freedoms enshrined in
our Constitution.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, for an additional 30 seconds.
Chairman Issa. I apologize, but the gentleman's time has
expired that he yielded to you.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I would ask unanimous consent that the
gentlelady be allowed to speak out of order for an additional
30 seconds.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am using this
to urge you once again to let Ms. Fluke testify. Let one woman
speak for the panel right now on this all-male panel. She is
here in the audience today. She is steps away. Even if you
think you will disagree with everything she says, don't we owe
it to the tens of millions of American women whose lives will
be affected to let just one, just one woman speak on their
behalf today on this panel as requested by the Democratic
minority?
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
I now ask unanimous consent that the statements, including
the Web site--there we go. That is better. I now ask unanimous
consent that both the Web site image and the statement by the
Catholic Charities be accepted into the record, in which they
say, ``In response to a great number of mischaracterizations in
media, Catholic Charities USA wants to make two things very
clear: We have not endorsed the accommodations of the HHS
mandate that was announced by the administration last Friday;
and, second, we unequivocally share the goal of the U.S.
Catholic bishops to uphold religious liberty and will continue
to work with the Catholic bishops toward that goal. Any
representation to the contrary is false.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.001

Chairman Issa. Additionally, I ask unanimous consent that
the letter dated February 15, 2012, entitled ``Unacceptable''
be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.026

Chairman Issa. I will note that the letter is in response
to the President's announcement that the government compromised
and is signed by over 300 individuals and groups, including
universities, professors, religious leaders, journalists,
independent scholars, lawyers and think tanks.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Issa. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek
recognition?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry? The
gentlelady from New York asked a direct question of the chair,
and I did not hear an answer. She asked that the witness----
Chairman Issa. I understand, and I was prepared the next
item to respond to both the ranking member and the gentlelady.
This House takes very seriously the committee rules. It is
a tradition, but not a rule, of the committee that the minority
have a witness. It is a tradition that the minority have one
witness. Just yesterday, the minority asked for and received
two witnesses, one on each panel. They were both qualified, one
being a U.S. Senator, but yet qualified.
The second, today, we received, not 3 days in advance or 2
days or even a full day in advance as is the committee's
requirement, but yesterday beginning at 1:30 there was a
dialog, and I would ask unanimous consent that the record of
that dialog by email be placed in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.027

Chairman Issa. In that--I will give it to you in a second.
In that dialog, beginning only at 10:45 a.m., and going through
4:59, there was an exchange of requests. The initial request by
the minority was for two witnesses, the one who has been
mentioned, and Barry Lynn. Barry Lynn is a well-known, I
understand, ordained minister, who has spoken on the issues of
religious freedom; has entered into both civil and, in fact,
legal proceedings for many, many years; is well regarded and
well known, even if I disagree.
When asked about the two witness request, I asked, what are
their qualifications? Additionally, I recognized immediately
Barry Lynn as the executive director of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State. He was, in fact, both because
of his religious background and because of his position and
because of his longstanding on that issue, he was fully
qualified, and I accepted him.
During the intervening time outlined here, there was a
retraction when we said there would only be one, and instead
the minority chose the witness we had not found to be
appropriate or qualified. Now, ``appropriate and qualified'' is
a decision I have to make. I asked our staff what is her
background, what has she done? They did the usual that we do
when we are not provided the 3 days and the forms to go with
it. They did a Google search. They looked and found that she
was, in fact, and is a college student, who appears to have
become energized over this issue and participated in
approximately a 45-minute press conference, which is video
available. For that reason I have asked my staff to post her
entire--the link to the 45-minute press conference so that the
public can see her opinion.
I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or
minority witness if they do not have the appropriate
credentials, both for a hearing at the full committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives and if we cannot vet them in a
timely fashion.
I believe that you did suggest two witnesses. One was
clearly appropriate and qualified. And I might note in closing
that if you had asked for a representative of Catholic
Charities or some other group, in other words if you had asked
for two fully qualified individuals, and particularly if you
asked for three or four but done it on Monday when we began
saying, where are your witnesses, we would likely have had one
on each panel.
So today we will have Barry Lynn. If he comes in time for
the second panel, we will include him, and you will not have a
witness otherwise. But understand for all the folks that have
made this point, you did not ask for it in a timely fashion,
not accepting the one of the two that you asked for that we
accepted makes it very difficult beginning yesterday and going
through the afternoon.
Does that fully answer the gentlelady's question?
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Ms. Fluke is a student at a well-respected
Catholic university. She is affected by these policies. Why in
the world is she not qualified?
Chairman Issa. I appreciate the gentlelady's question. We
are not having a hearing on the policies or the details related
to the single issue of ObamaCare and this particular mandate.
This hearing is about religious freedom. As you will note, the
men that you have noted on the panel come from denominations
other than Roman Catholic. They are, in fact, here to speak
about a broad question.
If this hearing were more broadly about health care or
ObamaCare, it would likely be--and the President's now legal
thing, which we often call ObamaCare--the fact is it probably
would be a Ways and Means Committee hearing or an Energy and
Commerce. We are here looking at government's bounds of, in
fact, not is it a good idea, not does it save or cost money,
but, in fact, how does it impact religious organizations and
people of conscience and faith. That is the limit of this
hearing today, and we have chosen and informed the minority in
an appropriate time, starting a week ago, we have said this is
the type of people we are going to have and why, and that is
hopefully what we will all understand.
Why does the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition?
Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, if I could just address this
point with you for a moment?
Chairman Issa. Please.
Mr. Quigley. You and I have always worked well together.
While not always agreeing on issues, we formed the Transparency
Caucus together. You know there have been several times when I
have crossed party lines to work with you on issues. I just----
Chairman Issa. Will today be one of those times?
Mr. Quigley. I am betting not. But with all due respect, I
think the American public has a funny way of deciding what the
core issue is when something happens before this committee. All
I am suggesting with the greatest respect is for you to decide
what the issue is. Others look at the same points of fact and
say the issue is really this. And I think if you talk about
liberties and expression, I think freedom of thought is as
important as any that you have discussed, and I think that--and
I say this without trying to raise your hackle, is that is
suppressing that freedom of thought.
It is this notion that one person, as fair as you might be
attempting to be, is unilaterally deciding what the issue is.
And the core here is--and that is why there is so much
controversy on this matter--is people see it in a different
way. Until we get past that point, we are going to have
problems.
Chairman Issa. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's--I will
take this as the last comment, if you don't mind. The fact is
it is the obligation of the majority to set the agenda. When
Mr. Towns was chairman, he set the agenda. On occasions he gave
me no option for a witness. When Mr. Waxman was, in fact, the
chairman, including the staff director who is now whispering in
your ear, they gave us one witness on a third panel, and, by
the way, we had to have it in a timely fashion.
So I appreciate your comments. The fact is we will now go
to our first panel of witnesses. With that, for what purpose
does Mr. Turner seek a limited time?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Turner. I would like to welcome to this hearing Dr.
Conroy's advanced placement U.S. Government class. Among the 25
high school seniors that we have with us from Georgetown
Visitation Preparatory High School includes my daughter
Carolyn, and I appreciate your willingness to allow me to
recognize them today.
This is a government class. They, of course, study the
issue of the Constitution, the issue of freedom of religion,
the issues of freedom of State. This is a hearing that will be
very important to them. I appreciate and welcome them on a
bipartisan basis to this hearing.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. Norton. You have just made an interpretation of the
rules, and I stress the word ``interpretation,'' because it is
precisely that.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. Norton. I ask the staff to get me the rules, Mr.
Chairman. And one thing, Mr. Chairman, we have been denied the
right to have a witness. I am going to have the right to make a
parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Issa. Then state your parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Norton. The rule that I am citing, Mr. Chairman, is a
rule of the committee, rule 2, and it states, ``that every
member of the committee shall be provided with a memorandum at
least 3 calendar days before each meeting or hearing explaining
the names, titles, background and reasons for the appearance of
any witnesses.''
Last night at 4:59 p.m., committee members were sent a
notice that invited two additional Republican witnesses for
today's hearing. This notice was less than 24 hours before this
morning's hearings, and therefore your actions have violated
rule 2, which requires a minimum of 3 days' notice to give
committee members adequate time to prepare for the hearing.
Now, of course, under normal circumstances if there had
been any deference to the minority, I would not even raise this
procedural matter. But you yourself have raised the rules, and
in light of that fact, and particularly in light of the fact--
--
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady's inquiry is noted. The
gentlelady's inquiry is noted. The chairman is prepared to
respond. That same rule 2 says, unless there are unusual
circumstances. Since you might be aware that one of the two
witnesses was Barry Lynn, and since only yesterday, 2 days
after what would be the appropriate time for the minority to
name their witness request, we were given it. With the short
notice, final schedule was determined based on the unusual
circumstances of the minority not in a timely fashion
submitting any valid request for any witnesses, even though on
a daily basis, actually multiple times per day, the majority
requested that.
With that, the chair will now welcome our first panel of
witnesses.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on my inquiry.
Chairman Issa. That we now welcome the Reverend William
Lori, Roman Catholic Bishop, of Bridgeport, CT. He is chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops; in other words, the go-to on
this issue.
The Reverend Matthew Harrison is president of the Lutheran
Church, Missouri Synod.
We have two Dr. Mitchells, so this is going to be an
interesting day. Dr. C. Ben Mitchell is the Graves Professor of
Moral Philosophy at Union University.
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik--close? You are the only rabbi, this
will make it a little easier--is director of the Straus Center
for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and
associate rabbi of the Congregation--that one you are going to
have to help us with.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun.
Chairman Issa. So it will be.
And Dr. Craig Mitchell is associate professor of ethics,
chair of the ethics department, and associate director of the
Richard Land Center of Cultural Engagement at Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary.
I know you are clergy, I know you are sworn to God, but
this committee has a rule that you will also be sworn here.
Will you please rise to take the oath. Raise your right hands,
please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Issa. Let the record reflect that all witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you. Please be seated.
Today is a large panel on the first and the second panel,
so your entire statements and extraneous information you would
like to supplement within 5 days will be placed in the record.
So I would ask you as close as possible to observe the lights
or the timers in front of you and stay as close as you can to 5
minutes, recognizing that there are no sermons here today.
With that, Bishop Lori is recognized.

STATEMENTS OF REVEREND WILLIAM E. LORI, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP
OF BRIDGEPORT, CT, CHAIRMAN, AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS; REVEREND DR.
MATTHEW C. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, THE LUTHERAN CHURCH, MISSOURI
SYNOD; C. BEN MITCHELL, PH.D., GRAVES PROFESSOR OF MORAL
PHILOSOPHY, UNION UNIVERSITY; RABBI MEIR SOLOVEICHIK, DIRECTOR,
STRAUS CENTER FOR TORAH AND WESTERN THOUGHT, YESHIVA
UNIVERSITY, ASSOCIATE RABBI, CONGREGATION KEHILATH JESHURUN;
AND CRAIG MITCHELL, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ETHICS,
CHAIR, ETHICS DEPARTMENT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE RICHARD
LAND CENTER FOR CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT, SOUTHWESTERN BAPTIST
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

STATEMENT OF BISHOP WILLIAM E. LORI

Bishop Lori. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to
testify today.
For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's
call it the parable of the kosher deli. Once upon a time, a new
law was proposed so that any business that serves food must
serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering
halls attached to synagogues since they serve mostly members of
that synagog, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the
mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community, whose members run kosher
delis and many other restaurants and groceries besides,
expresses its outrage at the new government mandate, and they
are joined by others who have no problem with eating pork, not
just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths,
because these others recognize the threat to the principle of
religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact
of the damage to that principle. They know that if the mandate
stands, they might be the next ones to be forced under the
threat of government sanction to violate their most deeply held
beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, ``But
pork is good for you.'' Other supporters add, ``So many Jews
eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times.''
Still others say, ``Those orthodox are just trying to impose
their beliefs on everyone else.''
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public
debate, because people widely recognize the following points.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is
good for you, that is not the question posed by the nationwide
pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates this question;
whether people who believe, even if they believe in error, that
pork is not good for you should be forced by government to
serve pork within their very own institutions. In a Nation
committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of
course, is no.
Second, the fact that some Jews eat pork is simply
irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not, and they do
not do so out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society, even large
majorities within protesting religious communities, the fact
that they reject a particular religious belief, does that make
it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of
the dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority
belief with coercive power? In a Nation committed to religious
liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their
beliefs on others has it exactly backward. Again, the question
generated by government mandate is whether the government will
impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting
Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition on the freedom
of those who want to eat pork; that is, they are subject to no
government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and
pork is ubiquitous and cheap and available at the overwhelming
majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork
producers and retailers, even the government itself, are so
eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give it
a way for free.
In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come
to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and, if
refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In
a Nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the
answer is no. So in our hypothetical story, because the
hypothetical nation is committed to religious liberty and
diversity, these arguments carry the day.
Now, in response, those proposing the new law claim to hear
and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer
them a new accommodation. You are free to call yourself a
kosher deli. You are free not to place ham sandwiches on your
menu. You are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich
and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force
your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and
offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all your customers
free of charge, and when you get your monthly bill from your
meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the free ham
sandwiches your customers may have accepted, and you will be
required to pay the bill.
Now, some who supported the deli owners initially began to
celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the
menu and didn't need to be prepared or served by the deli
itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling
things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for
the ham sandwiches; second, many of the kosher delis' meat
suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering,
preparing or serving pork to anyone; and, third, there are many
kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate
to prepare, offer and serve ham sandwiches still falls on them.
Well, the story has a happy ending. The government
recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher
deli and demand a ham sandwich, that it is beyond absurd for
that private demand to be backed up with the coercive power of
the State, and downright surreal to apply this coercive power,
when the government can get the same sandwich cheaply or even
free just a few doors down.
The question before the U.S. Government right now is
whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the
public and that are threatened by the HHS mandate will end
happily, too. Will our Nation continue to be----
Chairman Issa. Bishop Lori, could you wrap up? I will ask
for 15 additional seconds.
Bishop Lori. Thank you.
Will our Nation continue to be one committed to religious
liberty and diversity? We urge in the strongest possible terms
that the answer must be yes. We urge you in the strongest
possible terms to answer in the same way.
Thank you for your attention.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Lori follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.030

Chairman Issa. I will note for the record that witnesses
swore or affirmed, depending upon their faith.
With that, we go to Reverend Harrison.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND DR. MATHEW C. HARRISON

Rev. Harrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here.
The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, is a body of some
6,200 congregations and 2.3 million members across the United
States. We don't distribute voters list. We don't have a
Washington office. We are studiously nonpartisan, so much so
that we are often criticized for being quietistic. I would
rather not be here, frankly. Our task is to proclaim in the
words of the blessed apostle St. John: ``The blood of Jesus
Christ, God's son, cleanses us from all our sin.'' And we care
for the needy.
We haven't the slightest intent to Christianize the
government. Martin Luther famously quipped one time, ``I would
rather have a smart Turk than a stupid Christian governing
me.''
We confess there are two realms, the church and the state.
They shouldn't be mixed. The church is governed by the word of
God; the state by natural law and reason, the Constitution. We
have 1,000 grade schools and high schools, 1,300 early
childhood centers, 10 colleges and universities. We are a
machine which produces good citizens for this country at a
tremendous personal cost.
We have the Nation's only Historic Black Lutheran College
in Concordia-Selma. Many of our people were alive today and
walked with Dr. King 50 years ago in the march from Selma to
Montgomery. We put up the first million dollars and have
continued to provide finance for the Nehemiah Project in New
York as it has continued over the years to provide
homeownership for thousands of families, many of them headed by
single women. Our agency in New Orleans, Camp Restore, rebuilt
over 4,000 homes after Katrina, through the blood, sweat and
tears of our volunteers.
Our Lutheran Malaria Initiative, barely begun, has touched
the lives of 1.6 million people in East Africa, especially
those affected by disease, women and children, and this is just
the tip, the very tip, of the charitable iceberg.
I am here to express our deepest distress over the HHS
provisions. We are religiously opposed to supporting abortion-
causing drugs. That is in part why we maintain our own health
plan. While we are grandfathered under the very narrow
provisions of the HHS policy, we are deeply concerned that our
consciences may soon be martyred by a few strokes on the
keyboard as this administration moves us all into a single-
payer system. Our direct experience in the Hosanna-Tabor case
with one of our congregations gives us no comfort that this
administration will be concerned to guard our free-exercise
rights.
We self-insure 50,000 people. We do it well. Our workers
make an average of $43,000 a year; 17,000 teachers make much
less on average. Our health plan was preparing to take
significant cost-saving measures to be passed on to our workers
just as this health care legislation was passed. We elected not
to make those changes, incur great costs, lest we fall out of
the narrow provisions of the requirement required for the
grandfather clause.
While we are opposed in principle not to all forms of birth
control, but only abortion-causing drugs, we stand with our
friends in the Catholic Church and all others, Christian or
non-Christian, under the free exercise and conscience
provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Religious people determine
what violates their consciences, not the Federal Government.
The conscience is a sacred thing. Our church exists because
overzealous governments in northern Europe made decisions which
trampled the religious convictions of our forebears. I have
ancestors who served in the Revolutionary War. I have ancestors
who were on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I have ancestors
who served in the War of 1812, who fought for the North in the
Civil War. My 88-year-old father-in-law has recounted to me in
tears many times the horrors of the Battle of the Bulge. In
fact, Bud Day, the most highly decorated veteran alive, is a
member of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. We fought for a
free conscience in this country, and we won't give it up
without a fight.
To paraphrase Martin Luther, the heart and conscience has
room only for God, not for God and the Federal Government. The
bed is too narrow; the blanket is too short. We must obey God
rather than men, and we will. Please get the Federal
Government, Mr. Chairman, out of our consciences. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Harrison follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.032

Chairman Issa. We now go to Dr. Mitchell.
Before you begin, pursuant to the tradition of this
committee, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mulvaney and other
Members who may join us not of this committee be allowed to sit
on the dais, and, if time permits, ask questions after all
members of the committee have asked. Without objection, so
ordered.
Dr. Mitchell.

STATEMENT OF C. BEN MITCHELL

Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. As the chairman said, I am C. Ben Mitchell,
Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University, a
Christian liberal arts university in Jackson, TN. I am also an
ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention and serve
as a consultant on biomedical and life issues for the Ethics
and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention.
I am both honored and humbled to testify in support of the
protection of religious freedom and liberty of conscience. I am
honored because I have the opportunity and privilege of
following in the legacy of my Baptist forebears, who were such
stalwart defenders of religious freedom, and I am humbled
because many of those forebears suffered and died so that you
and I could live in a Nation with religious freedom from State
coercion.
I stand in the rich legacy of individuals like Roger
Williams, a one-time Baptist and founder of Providence
Plantation, which became the State of Rhode Island, who
declared in no uncertain terms that the violation of a person's
religious conscience was nothing less than the rape of the
soul. Williams understood that forcing a person through the
power of the State to violate his or her own conscience is a
monstrous harm.
Moreover, every American is a legatee of the freedoms
secured in our Constitution partly through the influence of the
Reverend John Leland, who was a Baptist minister in
Massachusetts and Virginia, and who became a friend of James
Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other American Founders. It was
Leland who helped frame the free exercise clause of our First
Amendment.
In a sermon Leland preached in 1791, he proclaimed, Every
man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every
man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can
best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer in
religious matters for individuals on the day of judgment, then
let men be controlled by government. Otherwise, let men be
free. He continued, Religion is a matter between God and
individuals, religious opinions of men not being the objects of
civil government nor any way under its control.
And finally, I must appeal to a 20th century colorful Texas
Baptist minister, George W. Truitt, pastor of the historic
First Baptist Church of Dallas. In a sermon preached from the
steps of the U.S. Capitol on May 16, 1920, Reverend Truitt
recounted a discussion at a London dinner between an American
statesman, Dr. J.L. Curry, and a Member of the British House of
Commons, John Bright. Mr. Bright asked Dr. Curry, ``What
distinct contribution has your America made to the science of
government?'' Curry responded immediately, ``The doctrine of
religious liberty.'' After a moment's reflection, Mr. Bright
offered a reply, It is a tremendous contribution.
I have two reasons for citing these historical examples. On
the one hand, it is to remind us that what American University
law professor Daniel Dreisbach and his coeditor Mark David Hall
have called the sacred rights of conscience which we Americans
enjoy were secured at an extraordinary cost. Our forebears were
beaten, imprisoned, and some died for the cause of religious
freedom from State coercion. On the other hand, it is to remind
us that, as Truitt said later in his sermon at the Capitol,
religious liberty was at least largely a Baptist achievement,
and I would add, for the common good.
Every American is a beneficiary of this legacy. We are all
freeloading on their sacrifice. That is why I am here to decry
the contraception, abortifacient and sterilization mandate
issued by the Department of Health and Human Services on
January 20, 2012. The policy is an unconscionable intrusion by
the State into the consciences of American citizens.
And contrary to portrayals in some of the popular media,
this is not just a Catholic issue. All people of faith, and
even those who claim no faith, have a stake in whether or not
the government can violate the consciences of its citizenry.
Religious liberty and the freedom to obey's one's
conscience is also not just a Baptist issue; it is an American
issue, enshrined in our founding documents. The Obama
administration's most recent so-called accommodation for
religious organizations is no accommodation at all. It is a
bait-and-switch scheme, in my view, of the most egregious sort.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Chairman Issa. Thank you, Dr. Mitchell.
[The prepared statement of Mr. C. Ben Mitchell follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.034

Chairman Issa. Rabbi, if you are going to do anything on
Catholic rules, just do it as well as Bishop Lori did.
Rabbi Soloveichik. No, I will stay out of that, thank you.
I am also very concerned about the pork being produced here in
Washington actually.
Chairman Issa. You know, we all say we are concerned, but
when it comes time to actually not serve it, it seems like it
comes out.
The gentleman is recognized.

STATEMENT OF RABBI MEIR SOLOVEICHIK

Rabbi Soloveichik. Thank you, Chairman Issa, members of the
committee.
In August of 1790, Moses Seixas, a leading member of the
Hebrew Congregation of Newport, RI, composed a letter to then-
President George Washington, who was visiting Newport. In his
letter Seixas gave voice to his people's love of America and
its liberties. ``Deprived as we heretofore have been of the
invaluable rise of free citizens,'' wrote Seixas, we now, with
a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty behold a government
which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no
assistance.''
Washington responded with sentiments that Jews hold dear to
this day. ``The citizens of the United States of America have a
right to applaud themselves,'' wrote Washington, ``for giving
to mankind a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike
liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.''
On Friday, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, I joined
Catholic and Protestant leaders in protesting a violation of
religious freedom stemming from the Department of Health and
Human Services new directive obligating religious organizations
employing or serving members of other faiths to facilitate acts
that those religious organizations consider violations of their
religious tradition. Later that same day the administration
announced what it called an accommodation. Not religious
organizations, but rather insurance companies would be the ones
paying for the prescriptions and procedures that a faith
community may find violative of its religious tenets.
This punitive accommodation is, however, no accommodation
at all. The religious organizations would still be obligated to
provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates
acts violating the organization's religious tenets. Although
the religious leaders of the American Catholic community
communicated this on Friday evening, the administration has
refused to change its position, thereby insisting that a faith
community must either violate a tenet of its faith or be
penalized.
What I wish to focus on this morning in my very brief
remarks is the exemption to the new insurance policy
requirements that the administration did carve out from the
outset; to wit, exempting from the new insurance policy
applications religious organizations that do not employ or
serve members of other faiths. From this exemption carved out
by the administration at least two important corollaries
follow. First, by carving out an exemption, however narrow, the
administration implicitly acknowledges that forcing employers
to purchase these insurance policies may involve a violation of
religious freedom. Second, the administration implicitly
assumed that those who employ or help others of a different
religion are no longer acting in a religious capacity and as
such are not entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of
religion. For Orthodox Jews, religion and tradition govern not
only praying in a synagogue, or studying Torah in a Beit
Midrash, or wrapping oneself in the blatant trappings of
religious observance such as phylacteries. Religion and
tradition also inform our conduct in the less obvious
manifestations of religious belief, from feeding the hungry, to
assessing medical ethics, to a million and one things in
between.
Maimonides, one of Judaism's greatest Talmudic scholars and
philosophers, and also a physician of considerable repute,
stresses in his Code of Jewish Law that the commandment to love
the Lord your God with all your heart is achieved not through
cerebral contemplation only, but also requires study of the
sciences and engagement in the natural world as this inspires
true appreciation of the wisdom of the Almighty.
In refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the
parameters of what the administration chooses to deem religious
conduct, the administration denies people of faith the ability
to define their religious activity. Therefore, not only does
the new regulation threaten religious liberty in the narrow
sense in requiring Catholic and other Christian communities to
violate their religious tenets, also the administration impedes
religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to
be religious.
Washington concluded his missive to the Hebrew Congregation
of Newport by saying, ``May the children of the stock of
Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the
goodwill of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in
safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none
to make him afraid.''
Benefiting from two centuries of First Amendment
protections in the United States, the Jewish ``children of the
stock of Abraham'' must speak up when the liberties of
conscience afforded their fellow Americans are threatened and
when the definition of religion itself is being redefined by
bureaucratic fiat. Thank you for the opportunity to do so this
morning.
Chairman Issa. Thank you, Rabbi.
[The prepared statement of Rabbi Soloveichik follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.038

Chairman Issa. And now the second Dr. Mitchell is
recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG MITCHELL

Mr. Craig Mitchell. I have come to you today to express my
concerns not as a religious leader, but as an American. My
father served for 20 years in the----
Chairman Issa. Dr. Mitchell, you have a great voice, but I
think your mic isn't on.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Okay.
Chairman Issa. You were doing well without it, but not for
the folks that have to record. Thank you.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. I come to you today to express my
concerns not an a religious leader, but as an American. My
father served for 20 years in the U.S. Air Force. My stepfather
served for 20 years in the U.S. Air Force also. I served for 12
years as an Air Force officer and obtained the rank of major in
the Reserves. I swore my brother in when he became an Active
Duty second lieutenant. So with all this, I have a very strong
view of what it means to be an American.
I do not object to this mandate upon health care only
because it is not consistent with my faith. No, I object to
this mandate because it is not good for America. To be an
American means that we stand for the Constitution of the United
States. The more that we find out about this health care bill,
the more we find out that our Constitution has been violated.
I and many others swore to defend this Constitution against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, yet our elected officials
have created this health care nightmare that requires every
citizen to buy medical insurance, whether they want it or not.
It is as if the commerce clause did not even exist.
To be an American means that we stand for religious
freedom. This mandate is contrary to everything that I and
every other person who wore the uniform stands for regardless
of what their faith was. This is true of people who have no
faith. It is inconceivable to me and many others that such a
bald-faced attempt to step on the Constitution of this great
country was even proposed. It is for this reason that I
traveled here today to make my objections known.
I am a Southern Baptist minister and a professor of
Christian ethics. As such, I know the Baptists have stood at
the forefront of religious liberty. This goes all the way to
Isaac Backus, Hezekiah Smith and others who pushed for the
freedom of religion.
When Thomas Jefferson talked about a wall of separation
between church and state, he was opposing persecution of people
for their beliefs, but that is exactly what this mandate does.
This mandate in the name of health care seems designed to
offend those who have religiously informed moral sensibilities.
Simply put, this mandate forces people to violate their
consciences. A government that will force its citizens to
violate their consciences has overstepped a critical boundary.
If the purpose of government is to serve its people, then this
rule is wrong. The arguments used to defend this mandate are no
different from the old argument that says we had to destroy the
village in order to save it.
It is the church that was responsible for the creation of
hospitals. The church is also responsible for much of the
development of health care. With this kind of history, it is
ironic that religious organizations should have their rights
crushed in the name of health care. If this is allowed to
stand, then there is nothing that the U.S. Government cannot
compel its citizens to do.
Explain to me how all of this is consistent with the
American ideal. On Friday, the President made some changes to
the mandate by having insurance companies pay for
contraceptives and abortions. As an economist, I know that a
tax liability on either the buyer or seller of a good will
still be felt by the other. Consequently, the requirement for
insurance companies to pay for this mandate will still be paid
by their customers. In other words, this solution does not in
any significant way dodge the religious liberty problems
associated with this mandate because those in religious
institutions will still have to foot at least part of the bill.
As such, my religious freedoms are still being violated. If the
President is allowed to have his way, I and every other
American will have no recourse to address this egregious act.
As an economist, I also know that when the tax incidence is
on the supplier, that the cost of the good or service
increases. The President's health care bill was sold with the
idea it would cut costs. We are finding thus far that it is
becoming far more expensive than it was originally planned to
be. This latest wrinkle only adds to the cost. In effect, it
adds insult to injury, especially when you consider that most
religious institutions are self-insured.
In conclusion, this rule is wrong not just for religious
conservatives, it is wrong for all Americans, because it takes
away the freedom of the citizens while emboldening the Federal
Government to do whatever it wants. It is wrong because it
violates the Constitution. It is wrong because it violates
religious liberty. It is wrong because it forces people to
violate their consciences. It is wrong because it is more
expensive. This ruling is just plain wrong for America.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craig Mitchell follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.040

Chairman Issa. I will note that we are now joined by the
gentlelady from the Third District of Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro,
who also will be allowed to ask questions after all others.
I will note for the record that I don't expect that to be
able to happen on the first panel, but we will certainly, at a
minimum, make it available on the second panel.
Thank you. Pleasure having you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a round of
questioning.
Both in a letter I received yesterday and in his opening
statement, the ranking member read or paraphrased the following
paragraph: ``As the son of two ministers from a small church in
Baltimore, I completely understand the position of the faith-
based community on this issue. I know both through my faith and
my legal training that we have an obligation as a Nation to
make accommodations''--I will now pause. He goes on to say,
``where appropriate, to avoid undue interference with the
practice of religion in this country.''
For each of you, if I simply strike from this paragraph
``where appropriate,'' obviously determined by the government,
and ``undue,'' obviously determined by the government, and I
read, ``to make accommodations to avoid interference with the
practice of religion in this country,'' is that paragraph and
that statement consistent with each of your views?
I see all yeses. So is it fair to say, then, that what we
are debating here is government's decision that it can
determine on behalf of people of faith and conscience the
question of ``where appropriate'' and what is ``undue?''
Seeing also yeses, if, in fact, this stands--would you put
that poster up? Would you bring out the poster of our President
John F. Kennedy?
John F. Kennedy said, ``I would not look with favor upon a
President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of
religious liberty.''
For each of you, or any of you, do you believe that, in
fact, we have a President's administration, not him personally,
who is working to subvert the guarantees of religious liberty?
Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Yes, absolutely, that is what the
current policy does, in effect. What their motivation is, I
can't speak for that, but there is no question that the current
policy and intent announced by the Department of Health and
Human Services does restrict and does effectively damage
religious liberty in this country.
Chairman Issa. Let me ask a question, because each of you
has expressed either opposition to the rule on the merits of
what it does or opposition because of how it affects future
decisions of religious freedom. Let me go briefly into the
question of the actual health items it affects.
I was brought up to believe that government in this country
is separate, clearly separate, from our faith and that often
government does things which in our faith we object to, but
that that is, in fact, the part of ``give Caesar his due'' that
we all grew up being taught in one way or another.
So, in fact, if government were to provide these services
over our personal objections, if government were to take our
tax money and fund that, something that we have a heated
discussion about all the time, would you change your position,
not from objecting to the particular funding, but to the
question of whether or not it is, in fact, impinging on or
infringing your liberty and your ability to teach your faith
and to practice it?
Yes, Bishop.
Bishop Lori. Government already does supply those things
with our tax dollars, but what we are objecting to is that
government is now reaching into the internal governance of our
religious bodies and requiring us, directly or indirectly, to
use our own resources for it. Because there is no such thing as
free.
Chairman Issa. So, for all of you--and when you get to lead
this off, it is sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but I want
to set the stage, I think, for both sides.
The fact is, today, what many of the members of the
minority talked about--you know, women's rights, reproductive
rights, safety, health--the fact is the government spends your
tax dollars involuntarily in many cases to do things that are
along these lines, either for the poor and indigent or for
others, and although religiously you may object to it, you
recognize that that is separate from telling you you must
participate directly through your activities.
Is that really what we are talking about here today?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Definitely.
Chairman Issa. Reverend Harrison.
Rev. Harrison. Precisely. And it has been said that Caesar
must be given no less than what is Caesar's, but no more
either. And you hit the nail right on the head. We participate
by paying our taxes in every aspect of society. We participate
communally, etc. But this provision is draconian, in that it
invades the realm of our conscience, and it becomes impossible
for us.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
My time has expired, but, Dr. Mitchell, you may answer
briefly.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Yeah, especially when you consider that
most religious organizations are self-insured, we have our own
insurance agencies. And forcing us to use our own money to do
this? That is really getting into it.
Chairman Issa. Rabbi, did you have anything to add?
Rabbi Soloveichik. I think that is exactly right, Chairman
Issa. And the President's spokesman recently, when speaking
about this subject, said that what their concern is is that
they don't want religious employers or organizations
restricting access to specific prescriptions, etc. But, of
course, those who have a religious objection are not seeking in
America to restrict their access to it. What they are seeking
is the freedom in their own right not to facilitate something
that violates the tenets of their own faith.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
The gentleman from--the ranking member is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Bishop Lori, I want to thank you--I want to
thank all of you for being here. And let me say that I am very
thankful for the service of your organization and other
Catholic groups that provide so much help to the poorest among
us. So I thank you.
On today's topic, I would like to ask about all the other
Catholic entities that praised the administration for their
decision last week to allow them to operate consistently with
their faith and the law, because people are becoming confused.
Some still have questions such as how entities that self-insure
will be treated, but they all commended the administration.
Unlike you, they believe these remaining issues can be worked
out.
For example, the Catholic Health Association represents the
largest group of nonprofit health care providers. They stated
that they were, ``very pleased with the White House
announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects
the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic
institutions.''
Similarly, Catholic Charities USA, the largest private
network of social service organizations in the United States,
stated that it, ``welcomes the administration's attempt to meet
the concerns of the religious community.''
Catholics United is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
promoting the Catholic social tradition. They called the White
House plan, ``a win-win solution,'' and stated that,
``President Obama has shown us that he is willing to rise above
the partisan fray to deliver an actual policy solution that
both meets the health care needs of all employees and respects
the religious liberty of Catholic institutions.''
And I know we can all differ in our opinions, but, Bishop
Lori, do you disagree with all of these other Catholic leaders
who believe the administration has struck the right balance?
Bishop Lori. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity
to comment on that.
First of all, when the announcement was made last Friday,
it came upon certainly the Bishops' Conference of a sudden.
There was no prior consultation, it was not given to us in
writing, and it was told to us not long before it was
announced. When we first heard it ourselves, we wondered if
there might not also be a glimmer of hope, but upon further
analysis within that same day we immediately began to see
problems.
Catholic Health Association put out its own statement, for
which it is responsible. Catholic Health Association does not
speak for the Church as a whole. The Catholic Bishops speak for
the Church as a whole. It is a lobbying group, it is a trade
association, it is not the Catholic Church as such. And it is
instructive that as time has passed on and there has been
further opportunity for analysis, both at the level of morality
and at the level of policy, there are questions that Catholic
Health Association itself is now rightfully asking.
Catholic Charities USA is in the same position. While it
initially offered a positive statement, it would seem as time
goes on it has also recognized that there are very serious
problems at the level of principle and at the level of
practicality, and they have issued a statement indicating their
solidarity with the Bishops.
I don't know much about Catholic United except it doesn't
have any particular standing in the Church.
Mr. Cummings. A few minutes ago, the chairman asked a
question like--I think I got it right--did you all believe that
the Obama administration was truly--do you really believe that
it is trying to subvert religion?
I think the rabbi did answer that. Did you answer that? Do
you really believe that?
Chairman Issa. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Rabbi Soloveichik. The word ``subvert''----
Mr. Cummings. Well, why don't you correct me? Tell me what
you asked. You held up the sign. Just tell me what you asked. I
just want to ask the question that you asked. I am asking him
specifically.
Chairman Issa. We will ask unanimous consent for an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. Cummings. I am not--I said very clearly--I wasn't
trying to confuse anybody. The rabbi answered the question.
Do you remember, Rabbi? What was the question?
Chairman Issa. Just for the record, Rabbi, I said that
President John F. Kennedy said, ``I would not look with favor
upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's
guarantee of religious liberty.'' And then I asked all about
John F. Kennedy's statement. And the gentleman was closer to
right than I remembered.
Mr. Cummings. Okay.
Rabbi Soloveichik. If I could just speak to that for one
moment, and I just--I did not say, Congressman Cummings, that
the President or the administration is trying to subvert
religious freedom. What I said was that the policy, in effect,
damages religious freedom. I made no statement at all about
what they are intending to do. That is not--I am not saying
anything about that.
Mr. Cummings. And what about you, Rabbi? I mean, do you
really believe that?
Bishop Lori. You mean myself, Congressman?
Mr. Cummings. Yeah, you. Yes, sir.
Bishop Lori. I believe there are serious challenges, not
just with the HHS rule, but also we saw serious challenges with
Hosanna-Tabor and we saw serious challenges in an attempt by
HHS to deny contracts to Migration and Refugee Services and
Catholic Relief Services because those organizations, in
fidelity to the Church, would not provide the so-called full
range of reproductive services.
We have an ad hoc committee on religious liberty that is
part of the Bishop' Conference because we have massive concerns
about religious liberty at the State and Federal level--massive
concerns.
Mr. Cummings. If I remember, we had a hearing on that, on
these contracts that you just talked about, and it showed
that--in the hearing, it came out that the Catholic Church--I
guess I am saying this right--received millions upon millions
of dollars in all kinds of contracts. You are familiar with
that, right?
Bishop Lori. Mr. Congressman, we don't get a handout.
Mr. Cummings. I never said that.
Bishop Lori. We contract for services, and we deliver, and
we bring to those services some moral convictions. And we
shouldn't be at a disadvantage because we bring some moral
convictions to the table. We also bring the generosity of the
Catholic people and we bring volunteers. When you contract with
the Church, you get a bang for your buck.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
We now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
McHenry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McHenry. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very simple and broad question for the whole
panel. It is a very simple question. Is this ruling by HHS--do
you view this as an issue of contraception and abortifacients
or an issue of religious freedom and conscience protections?
Bishop Lori? And we will certainly go down the row.
Bishop Lori. We view it as an issue of religious liberty.
We view it first of all and primarily at the level of
principle. It is a question of government reaching in to the
internal governance of religious bodies and making a
requirement contrary to church teaching.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, sir.
Reverend Harrison.
Rev. Harrison. Yes, we view it completely as a matter of
religious freedom. We have never gone on record opposing all
forms of birth control. We have only gone on record saying that
we have moral objections to abortifacients, abortion-causing
medications.
So we are deeply concerned that this is a conscience issue.
If we are forced in situations at our universities and other
institutions to act in ways fundamentally contrary to our
religious convictions, it has a disparaging effect on our
institutions. It denudes us of the very faith that has driven
us into those situations where we care for people in need.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. It is completely a religious-liberty
issue for us, a freedom-of-conscience issue for us. There is an
erosion of trust, I must say, among Baptists, or many Baptists,
and the administration. And as we now are sort of experiencing
the warm winds of an Arab Spring in the Middle East, we worry
seriously--it is a solemn issue for us--we worry seriously that
we may be entering thefirst chilling days of our winter of
discontent.
Mr. McHenry. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Yes, Congressman, this is absolutely an
issue of religious freedom and only of religious freedom.
If there are members of this committee or of Congress or of
the executive branch who are concerned about access to
contraception, they can seek through legislation or otherwise
to ensure greater access to that. That can be debated in
Congress, the Members of Congress can vote on that, etc. And
they are absolutely entitled and able to do that as Members of
Congress under the powers granted to them by the Constitution.
What they cannot do--and that is why we are here today--is
to achieve this end by trampling on the religious freedoms and
the liberty of conscience of Americans. And they can't do that
because that would be a violation of the Constitution that both
Members of Congress and of the executive branch have sworn to
uphold and protect.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Yes, this is clearly an issue of
religious liberty, and it is one that I couldn't have imagined
coming. And I think to see it as anything else is to completely
miss the real importance of this issue. And so that is why I am
here.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
Thank you for answering that question. A lot of folks, when
I pose this as a question of access to contraception, it is a
deeper question of conscience protection and compelling an
individual not simply to not do something, but compelling an
individual to purchase something which they find morally
objectionable and using the force of the State to compel them
to do that.
There is an additional question. You know, there is a
distinction within this rule about whether or not you are a
religious institution primarily, serving people only of your
faith, or are you open to others.
So, Bishop Lori, there is a significant amount that the
Catholic Church does not just in Washington, DC, or Connecticut
but across the country, so why does--does the Catholic Church
only serve Catholics?
Bishop Lori. No, it does not. It is----
Mr. McHenry. Why?
Bishop Lori. We serve----
Mr. McHenry. And with all due respect. I am Catholic, and
for me to----
Bishop Lori. Oh, no.
Mr. McHenry [continuing]. Speak to a bishop like this is a
little bit of a challenge.
Chairman Issa. It is your immortal soul you are risking.
Bishop Lori. Well----
Rev. Harrison. There is room over here.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Reverend.
Bishop Lori. You know, it all started when the Lord said,
``Go and baptise all nations,'' and that kind of put us on a
course of being out there. We serve people of all faiths and
none, not because they are Catholic but because we are Catholic
and because our faith prompts us to do it. It flows from what
we believe, how we worship, and how we are to live. And so, we
regard, for example, our Catholic Charities as really an
outgrowth of our discipleship of the Lord and our communion
with another in the Lord, not a side business.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
I might note, just to be ecumenical, that Beth Israel
provides Sunday food for Father Joe Carroll's food bank in San
Diego, just to make sure that all days are covered.
With that, we recognize the former chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
submit testimony from the National Health Law Program for the
record.
Chairman Issa. I am reserving--you said testimony. Is it a
written statement?
Mr. Towns. It is a written statement, yes.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.052

Mr. Towns. Let me begin by--and, first of all, you know, I
must say that I am concerned--and I know it has been expressed
earlier--that we have before us five distinguished men but no
women. And I must admit that, being an ordained minister
myself, I must say that even in spite of all of that, I am a
little nervous over the fact that we have five men and no
women. It sure would have been nice to at least have that kind
of dialog, because I really think that that is very, very
important.
And with that on the record, let me just move forward by
saying, it is my understanding--I guess, Bishop Lori, I will go
to you--that Georgetown University, a very prestigious
university here in our city, offers health insurance that
covers contraception for its faculty but not for its students.
Is that correct?
Bishop Lori. I am not familiar with the insurance plan of
Georgetown University.
Mr. Towns. Well, let me ask you, if that is the case, do
you believe Georgetown students should be offered the same
health insurance benefit as the faculty? Do you believe that
should happen?
Bishop Lori. Again, I don't think I would be qualified to
answer specifics about what kind of coverage provided to
students and faculty.
Mr. Towns. Well, let's deal with generalities then.
Bishop Lori. All right.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Towns. I would be delighted to yield to the chair.
Chairman Issa. Just briefly, we will have representatives
of Catholic University, Abbey College, Baptist University, and
Oklahoma Christian. So I think these are great questions, but
we will get it answered for you on the second panel.
Mr. Towns. Well, you know, I think what I am trying to do,
before the Bishop departs, I am trying to understand exactly
what problems the Bishops have with the administration's
policy. That is what I am really trying to understand. It is
not clear to me.
Bishop Lori. Yes, well, the problems are at the level of
principle and at the level of practicality.
The principle is the government's reaching in and forcing
us to do something. We might disagree inside of the Church, we
might have our problems inside of the Church, but it is not for
the government to weigh in and be the arbiter of those things.
And, second, many church entities, such as the Diocese of
Bridgeport, which I can certainly speak about, they are self-
insured. And so, as a result, I am not only the employer but
also the insurer. And so, certainly at the level of
practicality, the new rule does nothing to help.
And also there are many--there are religious insurers.
There are individuals who have conscientious objections, and
the rules do nothing for them.
So we have problems on all of those levels.
Mr. Towns. Right. Well, let me ask you this then. What if a
Catholic entity decides that it wants to obtain insurance for
its employees from outside that covers contraceptives? Does
that violate Catholic doctrine?
Bishop Lori. So, if you--your question is, if a Catholic
entity wishes or goes ahead and purchases coverage for
contraception or an abortifacient?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Bishop Lori. We would say it does, yes.
Mr. Towns. Anyone else, does it violate your doctrine? Very
quickly because I am running out of time.
Rev. Harrison. More specifically, only in the case of those
drugs which specifically cause abortion.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. And within the Southern Baptist
Convention, we have a resolutions process in our denomination
that, time after time after time, has passed resolutions
against any abortifacient drugs.
Rabbi Soloveichik. My concern here, Congressman, is not
what one particular Jewish organization might say about a
particular prescription or procedure or whether their tenets
are violated when they are forced to provide that. My concern
is when Congress or the administration comes in and says,
``Well, I see that there are some members of one faith who say
this, some members of faith who say this, so we are going to
unilaterally side with these people and force everyone, even
over their objections, to violate their conscience.''
In general, a religious community and a religious
organization should be free to define what the tenets of their
faith are, and they should be listened to when they are told
that a particular demand or mandate by the Federal Government
violates those liberties.
Rev. Harrison. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say ``amen''
to the rabbi because I have never had the chance to do that
before.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Towns. Could I give Dr. Mitchell just one----
Chairman Issa. Of course. The gentleman can answer if he
would like.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Yes, the Southern Baptist Convention,
there is no one statement that speaks for all of us, but I
think if you were to poll all the professors at our Southern
Baptist seminaries, what you would find is that we stand
solidly against abortion and we believe that it is contrary to
Christian faith and practice.
Mr. Towns. You know, the reason I asked this question,
being an ordained minister myself, you know, I still feel that
the woman's right to choose is something that we should just
not ignore. And, of course, as I indicated early on, you know,
it sure would be nice and make me feel a lot more comfortable
if we had a couple of females on this panel.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I might note that the Reverend Barry Lynn was not a female,
and that was who you requested that would have been on this
panel.
With that, we go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would yield for
such time as needed.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
I just want to be very brief. Gandhi said, ``In matters of
conscience, the law of the majority has no place.'' Rabbi, in
this case, where you have no faith-specific objections to what
is in HHS, isn't that essentially why you are here, that all of
us, as minorities, must stand together to say, there but for us
goes someone else the next time?
Rabbi Soloveichik. Well, the concern of the Founding
Fathers was not only the democratic rights of the majority to
engage in self-governance; their major concern in constructing
the Constitution was the rights of minority, what they called
other factions or groups, in this country.
And when I see the religious leaders of one pretty large
religious community in this country say that this government
mandate will force us--or is seeking to force us to violate a
tenet of our faith, and to see then the administration say,
``Well, that's too bad,'' then smaller denominations or faiths
in this country begin to wonder, well, not only is this an
outrageous violation of one particular faith's religious
freedom, it is quite frightening to all of us who care about
our own religious freedom.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the panel for being here today. Thank you for
your voice that you have stated very clearly.
In the Declaration of Independence, it refers to
``unalienable rights.'' How do you understand ``unalienable
rights?'' What is the meaning to you?
Please.
Bishop Lori. Thank you.
``Unalienable'' means that they are inherent in the human
person, and they are inherent in the human person because they
have been put there by the Creator, and that they are, as John
F. Kennedy said in his inaugural, they are not given by the
generosity of the State but by the hand of God.
Mr. Walberg. I assume all the rest of you would agree to
that?
Let me ask a followup question. Should your parishioners,
speaking especially of those of you, Bishop Lori, as well as
Reverend Harrison, should your parishioners who are body shop
owners or lawyers, whatever, have First Amendment rights of
conscience?
Bishop Lori. They most definitely should----
Mr. Walberg. Regardless of being an institution or not.
Bishop Lori. Yes. Institutional rights rest on the
foundation of individual rights. And it is clearly the teaching
of the church in its declaration on religious liberty that we
begin, really, with individual rights. And so it ought to be
possible in this country, if one wishes, to have a business,
let's say, run on Christian principles, where people agree to
work in such a business and where insurers and employers and
employees all come together and agree how that is all going to
work.
Mr. Walberg. Reverend Harrison.
Rev. Harrison. I agree completely.
It is surreal, this whole conversation is utterly surreal.
If the Supreme Court can uphold the rights of a tiny sect to
use a hallucinogenic drug in its religious rights, how is it
that our fundamental rights of conscience over long-established
moral principle, virtually unchanging in the history of
Christianity, is somehow dismantled?
And I find it totally offensive that we are subject to
accommodations and grandfather clauses. You can't accommodate
and you can't grandfather-clause the First Amendment. It is our
right.
Mr. Walberg. Martin Luther would express appreciation for
your intensity of position on that.
In recent weeks, I have had the dubious privilege of
sitting in hearings where I have heard the Constitution being
attacked, being denigrated. When I have heard people at that
table speak about ``constitutional niceties'' not dealing with
the real world of today, when I have heard a Justice of the
Supreme Court refer to the fact that new-forming-constitution
nations ought to look away from our Constitution and ought to
look to some other constitutions, it is unbelievable. And then
we come to this time, when, in fact, constitutional liberties
are being stepped upon, trounced upon, not only for
institutions but for individuals, as you very clearly stated,
in the area of religion and conscience.
I am a minister. I was formerly a pastor. I am glad to see
you gentlemen here. I would encourage you, with great respect,
to speak with clarity, to call for your congregations to
understand the power of freedom and liberty. And as Jonathan
Witherspoon, who happened to be a Member of Congress and a
signer of the Declaration of Independence and a signer of the
Constitution, stated very clearly: ``A republic once equally
poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.''
And John Adams followed, saying that, ``Liberty once lost is
liberty lost forever.''
And let me finish my one statement, and I would ask for----
Chairman Issa. The gentleman can have an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you----
Chairman Issa. Only.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. Mr. Chairman.
I don't normally quote from Joseph Stalin, but today he
said something appropriate about liberty. He said, ``America is
like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its
patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. If we can
undermine these three areas, America will collapse from
within.''
I would encourage the Church, I would encourage Congress, I
would encourage our administration to fight back strongly
against what Stalin understood and against what his principles,
if he would have carried them out, would have accomplished
through these--
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I presume the gentleman brought Stalin up
only to put him down.
Mr. Walberg. Absolutely. And I think I brought him up--
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, I was waiting for the picture of Stalin to appear
before us.
But one of the things I enjoy about this place is that we
quote Reagan to counter your arguments and you sometimes quote
Kennedy to counter ours. So I did find the--
Chairman Issa. I have Martin Luther King ready, too.
Mr. Quigley. I know, I am sure.
What we did was we found the actual speech that President
Kennedy as a candidate gave before the Greater Houston
Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960. He said, ``Because
I am Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President,
the real issues in this campaign have been obscured, perhaps
deliberately.'' Comes to mind what is happening today. ``I
believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic,
Protestant, nor Jewish, where no pubic official either requests
or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the
National Council of Churches, or any ecclesiastical source.''
He also says, ``I do not speak for my church on public
matters, and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue
may come before me as President, on birth control, divorce,
censorship, gambling, or any other subject, I will make my
decision in accordance with these views and in accordance with
what my conscience tells me to be the national interest and
without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And
no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide
otherwise.'' Just to give the full context of that.
And I would ask, without objection, if this transcript
could be included in the record?
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. I am pleased.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.055

Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield, briefly?
Mr. Quigley. Sure.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more
that we need to put it all into context of what government
might consider at government expense.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bishop--and I ask these questions, as I recognize Members
on the other side were concerned, with the greatest respect,
but it helps us understand how far this can go. Because, for
me, the question sometimes comes to, where does the conscience
decision lie? Does it lie with a group of men, as the panel
today or the Council of Bishops? I mean, who does it lie with?
Does it lie with the individual woman to make those decisions?
And, also, do you support this same policy that you have as
it relates to the private sector? In other words, do you think
that a fast-food restaurant person can, because of his moral
objection, say to his employees, ``I am not going to provide
birth control, as well,'' or a larger corporation?
Bishop Lori. You know, if there is real religious liberty
in our country, then churches, even if there is disagreement
within those churches, have the God-given right to run their
own institutions and their own internal affairs according to
their teachings. And if there should be discussion within that
church or even dissent within that church, it is not for the
government to reach in and to decide or to weigh in on one side
or the other.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people like to work
for the Catholic Church--that is the one I can speak for--
because they like to work for mission. They understand that
when they sign up to work for a diocese or a Catholic school or
for Catholic Charities what the teaching is. We have an
organized magisterium with the Pope and the bishops, and that
sometimes people agree with it, sometimes they don't, but they
love the mission and they come and work. We have no trouble
retaining and attracting people to work for us.
We provide great health-care plans. But, you know, under
these rules, we might have the best health-care plan in the
world, but if even one of these so-called preventive services
were not in our plan, we would be fined $2,000 per employee.
Mr. Quigley. But--
Ms. Buerkle. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Quigley. I am sorry. I am just so short on time.
Bishop, getting to the question, do you believe that a
private-sector company, if the owner or the board had moral
objections, the same moral objections you do, which I respect,
do you think that they have a right to deny offering
contraceptive services?
Bishop Lori. I think that that freedom obtains right now.
It already obtains. They can already do that.
Mr. Quigley. But we are talking about legislation, Bishop--
Bishop Lori. Right.
Mr. Quigley [continuing]. And there is legislation also
proposed right now that would extend this to the private
sector.
Bishop Lori. We are saying that this legislation should not
do so. We have been able to have that freedom now, and the
world has not fallen in upon itself.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
We now recognize the gentleman from Ohio--we have the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Buerkle, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me begin by saying what an honor it is to have you
here before us this morning and to hear your profound defense
of First Amendment rights in a time when there is so much
discussion and debate about this. It is so uplifting for me to
listen to so many different denominations talk about religious
freedom, because I believe that is the reason, as was so
clearly stated by many of you, why people came to this country
and why they continue to come to this country, because we offer
a freedom of exercising your religion. So thank you very much
for being here this morning.
I am a nurse. I have spent most of my professional career
both as a nurse and a health-care attorney. I am a mother. I
have been blessed with 6 children and soon to be 13
grandchildren. So I feel like I can speak to this issue.
And I really find it so objectionable that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle would characterize this as an issue
as narrow as contraceptives or abortion or sterilization. This
is a fundamental assault on one's conscience. And folks who
don't believe in God or folks who do believe in God or believe
in a certain--it is an affront to each and every American's
conscience.
So to try to narrow this down into a contraceptive or a
women's health issue, I am so appalled that that is the
approach. This is a fundamental assault on our First Amendment
rights. And we have to challenge the media and, as my colleague
mentioned, challenge the churches to articulate, this is the
issue; this is a First Amendment assault, and we need to defend
our Constitution.
So I thank all of you very much for being here.
I want to just briefly talk--I think we have established
that you feel that this is a violation of conscience. I would
like to just quickly go down the panel and ask each one of you,
how do you perceive this new rule?
And I want to clarify, first of all, before I ask you my
question, the HHS rule was not changed. Do you agree with that?
Okay. So let's establish that for the record, that, despite
this accommodation, the rule hasn't been changed. And it was a
verbal, as you mentioned--nothing was put in writing, which is
always of concern.
But I want to now ask each one of you, how would you see
this rule that has not been changed that violates conscience
rights, how do you see that affecting the missions of each one
of your churches?
Bishop, we can begin with you.
Bishop Lori. First of all, it does not remove the mandate,
and, as a result, it is still a great intrusion into the
freedom of our churches. And besides that, we think it violates
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it substantially
burdens our religious freedom by forcing us, indirectly but
nonetheless forcing us, to provide the so-called preventive
services in violation of our teaching.
And it also is simply unworkable, because many religious
entities are self-insured, and as a result, we are not only the
employer but the insurer. And so then it directly involves us
in providing the prescribed services.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Bishop.
And for the remaining members of the panel, do you
anticipate that there will be fines or penalties that you will
have to face because of this?
Rev. Harrison. Well, the penalties are variegated and
applied over time, but we could face multimillion, tens of
millions of dollars of fines, according to what our preliminary
research has shown, should we fall out of the grandfather
clause in some fashion.
Aside from that, this entire thing has already cost us a
lot of money because we were not able to take the steps, cost-
savings steps. We had to freeze everything already, when the
health legislation was on the table and passed.
Ms. Buerkle. And, Dr. Mitchell, do you anticipate that it
will affect the mission of all of the institutions and the
mission going forward?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Yes, ma'am, I do. Southern Baptist, my
own denomination, is a free church. That is to say, we are not
unlike our Catholic friends. We are not--we don't have a
magisterium. Every church is an autonomous body--16.8 or 17
million members and 5,000 or so denominations.
I can tell you this. Because we are a free church and
because we are so committed to a free state, because, as I
tried to indicate in my comments, our genesis in America was
committed to that freedom of conscience and liberty of
religious expression, tens of thousands of us, maybe hundreds
of thousands of us, would be very willing to spend nights in
jail for the sake of the preservation of religious liberty.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. It is not just our coffers that are at
risk, it is our very freedom.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Rabbi, I am over time. If we could just ask for two quick
answers, so we can get you in the record.
Rabbi Soloveichik. My concerning, Congresswoman, is both
for the objective religious-freedom rights of everyone in this
country, but I am also quite worried about the long-term
implications when I see an administration feeling free to say,
first of all, what a religious denomination's tenets require
and do not require. And I am also greatly concerned about the
long-term implications when an administration declares that a
particular organization is not a religious organization
precisely because they are motivated--in a situation where that
organization is motivated by its faith to reach out to people
beyond their faith.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. The thing that concerns me is that, if
they don't see this as a religious-liberty issue, what do they
see as a religious-liberty issue? And where do they stop? What
I see here is a hollowing out of what the concept of religious
liberty is, almost to the point where eventually it will be
nonexistent.
Ms. Buerkle. I thank you all very much.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Lankford [presiding]. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
And I thank all of you for your work and for being here
today.
I have serious concerns that the issue we are focusing on
today, whether women should have access to contraceptives in
their insurance coverage, is only a very small part of a
broader campaign to attack the use of contraceptives generally
for women across this country.
For example, right now, in 14 States in this country, in
this year, activists have been pushing initiatives to amend
State constitutions to define an embryo as a person from the
second of fertilization. Voters have already rejected
fertilization personhood laws three times--twice in Colorado
and once in Mississippi. The effect of these initiatives would
be to criminalize certain birth control methods.
So my question to the panelists is a general question, is
whether you agree that we should outlaw any form of
contraception starting at the moment of fertilization.
And if I could get a brief answer from Bishop Lori and then
Reverend Harrison and all down the line.
Bishop Lori. The pointed issue here is whether or not a
church that teaches the sacredness of life from the beginning
or opposes contraception or sterilization on moral grounds
should be forced to pay for it, not whether or not it should be
illegal.
Mrs. Maloney. But do you consider birth control pills to
fall in that category? In other words, would you favor making
the use of birth control pills illegal in this country?
Reverend Harrison.
Rev. Harrison. No, I would not. But neither do we include
birth--do we include those abortion-producing medications as
birth control.
Mrs. Maloney. When you say ``abortion-inducing
medications,'' what are you referring to?
Rev. Harrison. I am referring to those medications that can
cause a fertilized egg or an embryo to be aborted.
Mrs. Maloney. Is that so-called Plan B?
Rev. Harrison. Yes, Ella and Plan B.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, what about IUDs, Dr. Mitchell? Do you
believe that they should be illegal?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. We believe that they are contrary to
our view of the sanctity of human life because they allow
fertilization but they prevent implantation, and we believe
that human life begins at conception, not at implantation.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, what I understand from the
administration's proposal and what I understand from the public
comment in opposition to his proposal was that you do not want
to pay for these services. And under its proposal, you would
not pay for these services. They would be absolutely separate
in an insurance plan.
Now it seems that you are saying that no women should have
access to them and that they should be criminal. And what are
your comments on that?
I mean, I support religious freedom. I support every type
of religion in America. But I do not support imposing my
religious beliefs or anybody else's on anybody else.
Bishop Lori. In fact, the cost of providing those services
are borne someplace, either in the premiums that religious
entities pay, or they are borne because our plans are self-
insured and therefore we are the insurer as well as the
employer, or because we have religious insurers. In other
words, these so-called accommodations were made without
reference to the real world that the Church operates in, and,
as a result, they still entail us in cooperating with this and
in paying for it.
Mrs. Maloney. But I would say, with all respect, that in a
pluralistic society where we all have different beliefs--I, for
one, am opposed to the war in Afghanistan, but my tax dollars
are supporting the war in Afghanistan.
Bishop Lori. Congressman--
Mrs. Maloney. May I continue, please, sir?
I support--I am opposed to--many Americans are opposed to
capital punishment, yet their dollars are supporting capital
punishment. So, in many ways, when we live in America, and it
is a total society, then we are all a part of it. And I believe
that the President bent over backward, or rather the
administration, to make this separate.
And I would just like to conclude by saying that, although
I respect your right to have your own opinions about birth
control, I really do believe and think that the majority of
Americans do not share them. And they should be entitled to
have their beliefs, too.
I yield back.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
With that, I yield to Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses for coming today.
Doesn't this just get, this ruling, get to the very heart,
the very foundation of what America is about? You think about
this country, this experiment in freedom we call America.
People came here because in Europe they said, ``You have to
practice your faith a certain way,'' and they said, ``No, we
don't. We are going to go to America where we can do it the way
we think the good Lord wants us to do it.'' And that very fact
is fundamental to what we call this great Nation of America.
So this gets right at the heart of what we are as a
country, what we are as a people, what the Founders envisioned
this Nation would offer its citizens. Isn't that what--forget
all of this other talk we have been hearing from the other
side. This is fundamentally what is at stake here, the heart
and soul of what America is about.
Bishop Lori. Certainly, that is the glory of our country.
Religious freedom is the first of the freedoms in the Bill of
Rights, and it is really the source--
Mr. Jordan. But I would say even before the First
Amendment, the citizens of this country understood this is what
America was going to be about. Yes or no, Bishop?
Bishop Lori. Oh, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. Reverend.
Rev. Harrison. In my position over the last 10 years, I
have had to travel all over the world, 40 or 50 countries or
more. And every time I return home, I want to kneel down and
kiss the ground--
Mr. Jordan. Thank the good Lord you live here, yep.
Rev. Harrison. --because of the blessings that we enjoy in
this country. And I will stand, personally, for and fight for
the rights of every single citizen in this country to believe
and act--
Mr. Jordan. And this administration is putting that very
principle in jeopardy.
Rev. Harrison. I will fight for, give my sons up to fight
for--I have two sons, no daughters--and sacrifice everything I
have for the sake of guaranteeing the rights of every single--
Mr. Jordan. Well said.
Rev. Harrison [continuing]. Citizen in this country.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Dr. Mitchell, yes or no?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I think this issue does focus very,
very clearly the issue of religious liberty--
Mr. Jordan. Yep.
Rabbi.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell [continuing]. Whatever the other issues
may be.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. That is right, Congressman. This is an
issue of religious liberty, and only an issue of religious
liberty, that brings us here today.
Mr. Jordan. Yep.
Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. This is what America is about. And if
we let this go, we are in trouble.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. I want to play a tape for you. Let me
just change gears a little bit. I am going to play a tape of
what the President said, and I want to see if you think he has
kept his promise and honored what he said he was going to do
with the overall ObamaCare legislation.
Play the tape, if you would, please.
[Audio played.]
Mr. Jordan. Bishop, do you think, in light of what HHS has
ruled, do you think the President has kept his word?
Bishop Lori. I think right from the beginning we bishops
have been very concerned that conscience protection be built
into any form of health-care reform that would emerge--
Mr. Jordan. And because it isn't, there is no way that
statement that the President made can actually be true.
Bishop Lori. We feel that--
Mr. Jordan. As it applies to you.
Bishop Lori. We feel that we have good relationships and we
have exercised our freedoms wisely, and therefore it has not
been broken and shouldn't be fixed in the way it is so-called
fixed.
Mr. Jordan. Reverend, did the President--
Rev. Harrison. As a church body, we have no official
position on the rightness or wrongness of the President's--
Mr. Jordan. The President said if you like--
Rev. Harrison [continuing]. Health plan.
Mr. Jordan. The President said if you like your plan, you
can keep it. Is that true?
Rev. Harrison. All I would like to say is that we are here,
I am here today because we are deeply concerned about the
religious-liberties provision.
Mr. Jordan. Will you be able to keep the same plan if this
rule is in place?
Rev. Harrison. We are hanging on by a fingernail. And, as I
said in my opening statement, I believe a couple of strikes of
a keyboard could eliminate our freedoms very easily.
Mr. Jordan. Doctor, did the President honor his promise?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I think it is very ironic that he used
the word several times ``trust'' and predicated his comments on
the word ``trust.'' I am not from Missouri. I have lived there
before, but I am not from Missouri. I have to say that any
future rulings from the HHS I will have to see to believe.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Will you be able to keep the plan that
you offer?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Well, we have--yes.
Mr. Jordan. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. I am not here to represent an
institution that offers a plan or does not offer a plan.
Mr. Jordan. Right. Got it. You are here--
Rabbi Soloveichik. What brings me here is great concern
when an administration or HHS claims the power in a mandate to
define what is a violation of religious belief and what is not
a violation of religious belief.
Mr. Jordan. Finally, if I could, Dr. Mitchell, do you think
the President kept his word with the clip you saw?
Mr. Craig Mitchell. I don't think that he did. I think that
rather than fix what is broken, he has broken what was already
working.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
I yield back. Thanks.
Chairman Issa [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
We now go back to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here.
As I listened, this is a very serious discussion, and I
think all of America is really watching and listening to what
it is that we have to say.
I, first of all, want to associate myself with the comments
made by the former chairman of the full committee, Mr. Towns,
and my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, relative to the
absence of women on this particular panel.
With that said, it seems to me that we have not talked a
great deal about the health-care benefits of the discussion, of
the issue. And given the fact that the discussion emanated from
implementation of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, let me
ask if either one of you gentlemen have a health background, in
terms of any kind of health delivery to individuals?
No? All right.
Let me just--obviously, there are many well-known benefits
for women to be able to control their own lives and to plan
their pregnancies, including by using contraception to
determine whether or when they get pregnant.
But that is merely the contraceptive use. A significant
proportion of women, 1.5 million, use the pill exclusively for
medical purposes other than contraception. They use
contraceptives to treat severe menstrual pain, migraines,
uterine fibroids, and endometriosis. Oral contraceptives also
help prevent ovarian cancer. One study found that oral
contraceptives have prevented 200,000 ovarian cancers and
100,000 deaths from the disease.
Is it your understanding that--or do your religious
teachings prohibit the use of contraception for health-related
purposes such as treating ovarian cancer?
Bishop, perhaps we could start with you.
Bishop Lori. I think Catholic moral theology is very
nuanced. It recognizes that the same drug can operate in
different ways and accomplish different things. If it is used
to prevent birth, it is against our teaching. And so we have
operated with a considerable--with a lot more nuance than we
are usually given credit for.
I would also observe, by the way, that 90 percent of all
private health-care plans give access to contraception. We are
talking about a very narrow band and for very specific purposes
here.
Mr. Davis. Anyone else?
Rev. Harrison. We are all for medicine for women. In fact,
I have spent years of my life working with relief and
development and charitable organizations providing specifically
services to women. So we are all for medications that help
women. We are just not for using certain medications to end
pregnancies.
Mr. Davis. I think the--
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I was just going to add, in our
setting, because we are a free church, the use of
contraception, the contraceptive pill for instance, is a matter
of Christian liberty. So that is, the use of the pill is a
matter of Christian liberty.
Mr. Davis. I think there are perhaps some people who get a
bit confused when they try and sort out what the most rational,
logical approach might be, especially if we are trying to
improve health care and if we are trying to provide the best
health-care delivery system. And so we see numerous health
experts who recommend the use of family planning as part of
preventive care for women: the American College of
Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
American Academy of Pediatrics--
Chairman Issa. I would ask that the gentleman have an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And the American Public Health
Association.
So my 15-second question is, if a woman who worked for one
of the institutions that you might be associated with had need
for these services as a health measure, what would your
position be? Should she receive them? Should she get them?
Chairman Issa. You can answer briefly. Anyone who wants to
answer can answer briefly. Time has expired.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Congressman, if you as a legislator or
the administration or Health and Human Services sought to
provide greater preventive care, seeking in an initiative to
prevent illnesses among women or men, and that was the focus,
none of us would be here today. We are not here because we wish
to in any way hurt preventive care of anybody. And you
absolutely could have done that, and the administration could
have done that.
We are here today because the administration is showing
insensitivity to the liberties of conscience of some faith
communities in America, not necessarily in this case, my faith
community, but that is the insensitivity being shown here. And
that is why we are all here today.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
And, with that, we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Kelly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the chairman.
And I would like to just yield 15 seconds or so to Ms.
Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Just briefly, because it was just raised, the issue of
access to health care, on Monday of this past week I toured a
very prominent, wonderful Catholic hospital in my district and
talked with administrators. And they are a self-insured
program. And she said to me, ``If this rule continues to be
enforced, we will have to drop our self-insurance. All of our
employees will have to go into contract with an insurance
company, and it will dramatically raise their costs.'' So I
think that is one of the unintended consequences of this rule.
I yield back, and I thank you.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the lady.
And, all of you, thanks for being here today, because this
is a difficult situation for a lot of people across the
country. And I think it was Dr. Mitchell that talked about
trust and truth. And I have a habit every time I get into these
meetings anymore of going to get some definitions of what
``truth'' and ``trust'' are. ``Truth'' is nothing more than
sincerity in action, character, and utterance. ``Trust'' has to
do with assured reliance on the character, ability, strength,
or truth of someone or something.
And this hearing today is about freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, and a government that continues to intrude on our
private lives in ways that we may not agree with and certainly
don't agree with in many, many ways, shapes, and forms.
In the area of the country where I am from, there is an old
saying that goes something like this: Fool me once, shame on
you; fool me twice--no--shame on me. And I think we have
reached that point in the most transparent administration that
we have ever seen.
There is one thing that is very clear to me: Transparency
has nothing to do with any of this. We take bad policies and
when we can't shove it down the public's throat, we take the
package back, re-wrap it in a little different color paper, put
a little different bow on it, and say, ``Do you like me better
now?''
So I have a very difficult time sitting here in these
hearings and getting beyond what it is we are talking about. We
are talking about the Constitution, and we are talking about a
President whose former job at the University of Chicago, he was
a professor of constitutional law. So I find it difficult to
understand how the Constitution only has relevance on certain
days and at certain times and only if it really appeals to
something I am trying to push that day.
So we have come to ``constitutional niceties'' and
``constitutional convenience,'' and what we have done, we have
turned our back on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and,
again, a government that is too overbearing.
So, in light of all that--and, Your Excellence, if we could
start with you, any of you. Because of the transparency--let me
ask you, did anybody in the White House or Secretary Sebelius
or anybody from the Department of Health and Human Services
ever seek your input in any of this language? Your Excellency?
Bishop Lori. Not on this latest rounds of rules, no.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. Previously?
Bishop Lori. We certainly had the opportunity to comment.
When the interim final rule by HHS came out in August 2011, we
had the opportunity to comment. Massive numbers of comments
were sent in. As is well known, the President met with
Cardinal-designate Dolan, and so there was certainly a meeting
at that level. But then before the final rule came out last
Friday, there was no prior consultation.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, I will.
Chairman Issa. But on the earlier promotion of what now is
known often as ObamaCare, you were well consulted. There was an
outreach to get support for that, wasn't there?
Bishop Lori. When the underlying bill itself was being
debated, we certainly had the opportunity to weigh in, and we
did.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Any other Members of the panel?
I mean, I really am concerned, because we talk all the time
about this transparency and collecting from around the country
from the best minds available. And then it seems to me, we sit
back and say, ``Well, you know, we talked to them. You know
what? They don't agree with us, so we are going to kind of
dismiss that and we will go forward.'' And that is the thing
that I think is more disturbing than anything else. I, for one,
as just a regular American citizen, am trying to figure out--
and I think I know the answer. And I said earlier, fool me
once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I am not going
to be fooled anymore.
Reverend or Rabbi, anybody that wants to weigh in on this,
because if any of you had any input or are aware of any input
that was taken seriously and not just given some kind of a
massage?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I am not aware of any input other than
what the average citizen would have.
But I also have to say that those closing comments in my
statement, that the administration's accommodation was no
accommodation at all, were written several days ago before I
learned that on Friday the final rule had no accommodation.
That seems to me not to reflect good-faith efforts and trust.
Mr. Kelly. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. I would just refer, Congressman, to a
series of questionings that took place on the other side of the
Hill. When Senator Hatch asked Secretary Sebelius about not
only whether they had originally, in designing these
guidelines, looked into the concerns of religious communities
but also to the constitutional and legal issues of religious
freedom, and the answer was quite remarkable.
Mr. Kelly. Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. I am not aware of anybody asking about
this, but, you know, when you consider that the President
taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, you
would kind of think that this would have been the first thing
he would have considered.
Mr. Kelly. Yeah. Well, like you, I am tired of being gamed.
I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank you
for speaking.
And also, my bishop, Bishop Zubik in Pittsburgh, and Bishop
Trautman in Erie have been very clear about how they feel about
this to everybody that they can talk to.
I appreciate you coming forward. I appreciate your bravery.
And we continue to battle for the same things, and that is the
defense of our First Amendment. Thank you so much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time
has expired.
We now go to the gentleman from Missouri for 5 minutes, Mr.
Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And this is obviously an issue that provokes strong
reactions on all sides. And that, unfortunately, can lead to
overstatement, exaggeration, or even to say disingenuousness.
It is sad to see the discourse reach such a low point,
especially considering the respected and esteemed institutions
that are participating in this discussion.
And I want us to be able to work together on this and other
similarly critical issues that we face. I want us to try to
agree on goals and then try to work together to achieve those
goals. And I think that is what our constituents hired us to
do. In fact, I know that is what my constituents from St. Louis
hired me to do. But the rhetoric and verbal bomb-throwing on
all sides keeps us from even talking about those goals, much
less how to achieve them.
And so I am disappointed. I am disappointed in some who
suggest that the Catholic Bishops' stance represents something
sinister, that it is an attempt to deny all women of any faith
access to any contraception or reproductive health care of any
kind no matter where they work. And I don't think that is the
case, and I certainly hope that is not the case. And it is
unhelpful to advance that argument if we want to work together.
I am disappointed in those who claim that the
administration has an agenda: to increase abortions,
sterilizations, and contraceptive use by Catholics. And the
facts don't back that up, not in the slightest. And it is not
only unhelpful, it undermines what I believe to be a legitimate
argument the Church can make about religious freedom.
But most of all, I am disappointed in this committee. Once
again, rather than have a reasoned, equitable, and transparent
examination of an important issue, we have a politicized and
unbalanced hearing. Once again, we see an unfair attempt to
score political points against the President and this
administration.
And, you know, I did not support the initial narrow
exemption that was announced on January 20th. As a Catholic, I
did not believe it took into account the full extent of
Catholic health care and social services nor of Catholic social
teachings. And I am very pleased that the President expanded
the exemption. The new policy provides the widest possible
health-care coverage for all Americans, and it allows Catholic
institutions to continue their faithful work in the service to
education, health care, and charity.
And, Mr. Chairman, I urge all sides to continue to work
toward reaching the goal that I know most Americans share, and
at least some in this room do as well, and that goal is to
provide the broadest possible access to health care to all
Americans while respecting the genuine freedoms that our Nation
guarantees to everyone. And I strongly urge all sides to
exercise decency and respect for one another, even when we
disagree most fervently. We should not sacrifice one set of
principles in our struggle to uphold another.
And, at that point, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but
I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Bishop Lori, I am so--I am sitting here, and I am trying
to--first of all, I am going to associate myself with the words
of the gentleman, Mr. Clay.
But help me with this. If there is a woman--and, see, I am
trying to--you mentioned practicality a little earlier. If
there is a woman who is, say, working for a Catholic entity and
she comes to you and she says, you know, ``I want
contraception; it is something that I want''--and I have read
surveys where it said 98 percent of women, Catholic women, use
contraception--I am just curious, what do you say to her?
Bishop Lori. When somebody comes aboard to work for the
Church to begin with, the teaching is clear, the mission is
clear, the teaching of the Church in all of its nuance is set
forth, and the terms of the plan are clear.
Let's be clear that contraception is available in many
different ways. Sometimes a couple in that condition, in that
situation, might access it through a spouse's plan. But 90
percent of all health insurance plans include it. Plus, there
is Title X; plus, there are clinics. It can hardly be said that
this is unavailable. It is available very, very widely.
The issue here is forcing the Church to provide it directly
or indirectly in contravention of the Church's teaching. And
that is what we don't want to do. It is one thing that tax
dollars pay for it; it is another thing when Church dollars pay
for it.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Chairman Issa. We now go to the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to do something that we don't have a chance to do
very often in Congress, which is actually to apply the facts to
the law.
Secretary Sebelius said her mandate, ``strikes the
appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and
increasing access to important preventative services.'' Now, I
can find the free exercise of religion in the Constitution. You
don't have to read very far to find that. I can't find the
constitutional right to free preventative services. So what she
is seeking to do is to balance something that cannot be taken
away from you with something that the Constitution doesn't even
provide to you.
But I want to do this, I want to go through the law. It is
a very simple analysis.
Number one, does this mandate impose a substantial burden
on the free exercise of religion? Yes or no? Does this mandate
impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of your
religious beliefs?
Bishop Lori. Yes, we believe it does.
Mr. Gowdy. Reverend Harrison.
Rev. Harrison. That is why I am here.
Mr. Gowdy. Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. It imposes a substantial burden on the
religious freedom and religious beliefs of many Americans.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. All right. Check.
Second part of the analysis: Is there a less intrusive
means of accomplishing a compelling State interest? Let's take
them backward. What is the compelling State interest in
providing free contraception? It is available to 98 percent of
the people in this country. Heck, there are some cities and
States that will provide it for free; just show up.
So the notion that there is a compelling State interest in
providing what is already available--and then go to the second
part, is there a less intrusive means of providing that? I have
not heard a single one of my colleagues say that they are going
to submit a bill which pays for this themselves. I have not
heard a single one of my colleagues offer to pay for it
themselves. They want you to do it.
Yes, sir?
Bishop Lori. We would say that it is not a compelling
governmental interest. If it were, there would be no such thing
as grandfathered plans. If it were, that these plans that have
existed until now with exemptions would not have been allowed
to do so. And so we do not think there is a compelling
government interest, because there are still, under the current
law, far too many exceptions for the government to be able to
make that argument.
Mr. Gowdy. You are right, Bishop. So even if this
administration were to rewrite the Constitution, as has been
known to happen from time to time, to find within the penumbra
of the Fourth Amendment this right to free--not a right to
preventative services; our friends on the other side of the
aisle misapprehend the point--a right to free preventative
services, it still doesn't pass the less intrusive aspect of
this constitutional analysis.
So, with the law out of the way, then we can get to the
sheer politics of this. I couldn't help but smile when my
friend from Missouri encouraged us all to not score political
points. I couldn't help but think, ``Gosh, this is an election
year. I wonder if I ought to provide free preventative services
to over half the voting population.'' Huh, I wonder if that is
what he meant by scoring political points. If you want to do
it, that is fine. Don't do it through the First Amendment of
the Constitution.
I would say this in conclusion, then I want to give time to
my friend and colleague, Mr. Mick Mulvaney.
Bishop, would you rather close down your hospitals and your
schools than to comply with a governmental edict that violates
your faith?
Bishop Lori. We are not going to violate our consciences.
Mr. Gowdy. Reverend Harrison, you have already spoken with
respect to civil disobedience. I believe you said you would
sooner go to jail than violate your conscience.
Rev. Harrison. Yes, I would, clearly.
Mr. Gowdy. Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I would like to be in his cell.
Mr. Gowdy. We will try to work that out.
Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Freedom of conscience and of religion,
Congressman, is the first and most sacred of American
liberties.
Mr. Gowdy. Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. This is not the kind of thing that we
can afford to play with. This is essential to our country.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, just so everybody understands what is
going to happen, these guys are either going to go to jail
because they won't violate their religious beliefs or the
hospitals and the schools are going to close, which means
government is going to get bigger because they are going to
have to fill the void that is left when you guys quit doing it.
And maybe that is what they wanted all along.
I apologize, my time is up.
Chairman Issa. I am afraid you just lost a friend, Mr.
Gowdy. Your time has expired.
Mr. Gowdy. Apologies to my friend from South Carolina.
Chairman Issa. As is appropriate, I now ask unanimous
consent that the statement and this paper by Martin Luther King
be placed in the record in which he says, ``There comes a time
when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic
nor popular because conscience tells one it is the right
thing.''
With that, we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
You know, I criticized the policy coming out of the
Department of Health and Human Services because I thought that
some of the critics, including critics of my own denomination,
had a point. And I thought they had misstepped, and I urged the
White House to correct the problem. I believe, like millions of
Americans, that they did correct the problem.
And I believe today's hearing is a sham. And I believe--I
have to assume each of you gentleman came here in good faith,
but surely it has not escaped your attention that you are being
used for a political agenda. Maybe you are willingly being
used, I don't know. I don't know what is in your heart.
Here you are, being asked to testify about your rights
being trampled on--an overstatement if there ever was one--
while you are on a panel and your participation on the panel
makes you complicit in, of course, the trampling of freedom,
because we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness
who might have a differing point of view.
Chairman Issa. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. No, sir, I will not.
And I think that is shameful. I think it actually
contradicts exactly what you think you are here to testify
about. And I think it taints the value of this panel that could
have been a thoughtful discussion but it is not.
This is a panel designed, with your conscious participation
or not, to try one more time to embarrass the President of the
United States and his administration by overstating an issue
which is sacred to all Americans, religious freedom. But, of
course, in order to do it, we have to, in an almost Stalinist-
like fashion, have signs of Democratic icons to rub Democratic
faces in it, as if those icons would be on the same side of
this dispute today. But since they are all deceased, it would
be hard to gainsay that.
And so I say to you, as a member of this committee who
actually shared the concerns you say you have last week, that I
think this is a shameful exercise, and I am very sad you have
chosen to participate and be used the way you are being used,
just as you were in the previous questioning, as if people are
going to jail over this. Shame. Everybody knows that is not
true. Catholic Hospitals supported the compromise. They are not
afraid of closing down hospitals in America.
If we want to have a legitimate debate about, you know,
where is the right boundary, let's have it. But overstating it
and making charges that are just outlandish and, frankly,
beyond the pale serves no purpose other than political
demagoguery in an election year. And men and women of the
cloth, it seems to me, ought to run, not walk, away from that
line.
I now yield to my colleague from Connecticut, Ms. Rosa
DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
I think that one of the pieces of information that hasn't
been discussed here today at all, quite frankly, is that, in
fact, there is an exemption for the Catholic Church, other
houses of worship, for the Catholic Church and the synagogues,
for mosques, there is an exemption--
Chairman Issa. If the gentlelady will suspend, the
gentleman cannot leave the room while yielding to another
Member. Would you please remain?
Mr. Connolly. One second.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman has yielded back his time.
We now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
standing right there.
Mr. Connolly. I am right here.
Chairman Issa. Oh, the gentleman has returned. Is the
gentleman going to remain, please?
Mr. Cummings. He was standing right there.
Ms. DeLauro. Right here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cummings. Let the lady--
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady--
Mr. Cummings. Let the lady talk.
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady may continue.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
And I also appreciate the opportunity to be here today. And I
know I am not a member of this committee, so I appreciate that.
But I also appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak in
this forum.
The fact of the matter is that the churches, synagogues,
mosques, other houses of worship are exempt, as are their
employees. Let us state the facts on that. And most recently we
had a Supreme Court decision that upheld the opportunity for
those houses of worship to be able to hire whomever they want,
so that the church is exempt, their employees are exempt.
Understand that what we are talking about here today--and I
will speak about the Catholic Church as a provider and as an
employer. And the fact of the matter is, as a provider, nothing
changes. The conscience clause, all of that is intact. You
cannot dispense, prescribe, use a contraceptive service if that
is so your choosing.
But, in fact, the church is an employer. And as an
employer, and now particularly under the accommodation that was
made that there has to provided for people who work for that
entity to be able to get insurance coverage that includes the
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which is a
medical independent research body that was asked to come up
with what are the essential preventive services that women
would need for health care. And amidst them, amidst them, there
is contraceptive coverage.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. DeLauro. Not churches or hospitals--
Chairman Issa. We now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Farenthold.
Ms. DeLauro. Talk about abridging freedom of speech.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I understand that this is an issue that everyone is
incredibly passionate about. It is the First Amendment to the
Constitution, the one that I think our Founding Fathers
considered most important because they put it first. And I can
understand why everybody is passionate and concerned about this
issue.
Quite frankly, I believe the Affordable Care and Patient
Protection Act is unconstitutional to begin with. The attorney
general of my home State, Texas, along with numerous others,
have filed suit in the Supreme Court, and I am optimistic that
the Supreme Court will hold the entire act to be
unconstitutional.
But add to this the mandate that the Church provide and pay
for services that they are opposed to brings it in
contradiction to the First Amendment, as well. And that is a
double strike. It makes it, I guess, even more
unconstitutional, or doubly unconstitutional.
But I did have a question for Mr. Lori. I wanted to follow
up with something some Members of the other side asked. I am
the product of Catholic middle school, Catholic high school,
and Catholic law school, so I guess I have had 4, 5, 6, 9 years
of Catholic education. And unless the nuns got it wrong, the
Catholic Church does not have a problem with the use of
contraceptives for medical purposes. So I would assume from
that it wouldn't be morally objectionable to the church to pay
for those for medical purposes.
I am not trying to put you on the spot. I am just trying to
make sure I understand where the Church stands.
Bishop Lori. That would be my understanding also.
Mr. Farenthold. And there are numerous organizations, both
federally and private funding, that make available free or low-
cost contraceptives throughout the country. I am sure you are
aware of that?
Bishop Lori. Yes, that is also my understanding.
Mr. Farenthold. So we have a mandate here that really is a
lot of much ado about nothing. If it were carefully crafted,
the chances of somebody not being able to get the care or, for
that matter, the optional contraceptives that they desire is,
for all practical purposes, nil?
Bishop Lori. Those services are very, very widely
available, and what we are talking about is a very narrow band.
It is clearly a minority opinion or a minority view, but we
think it is one that ought to be protected.
Mr. Farenthold. I think we are at a point where we are
trampling on the Constitution for no real reason.
I also had the opportunity this week to meet I guess with
your friend Bishop Mulvey from Corpus Christi. He sends his
regards. And, you know, what we kind of talked about is how
this really is a moral issue. Religious freedom--being told
what to do is an intrusion on these freedoms. And the issue is
religious liberty.
And maybe this is more of a rhetorical question than it is
an actual question, but I will open it up to the panel. Today
it is contraceptives; where do we go next? I mean, what are we
opening the door to when we start trampling on these liberties?
And, again, I will call it a rhetorical question, but if
any member of the panel would like to comment, I would welcome
it.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Well, this was a question I asked
before. Where does it end?
I think that we are clearly hollowing out the idea of
religious liberty by going in this direction. And you can--it
is one of just many--a death of many cuts. And if you can keep
on finding reasons to reduce it, people will. And so I think
that there is a real danger here.
Mr. Farenthold. I think you will find--did you have
something to add, Your Excellency?
Bishop Lori. It is at the level of principle. If the Church
can be dragooned into providing these objectionable services,
then the door is open to other objectionable services down the
road. So it is breaching a principle.
Mr. Farenthold. And I go back to, a lot is accomplished in
this government one step at a time or incrementally. And we
need look no further than the fact that you can practically
smoke nowhere. First, you had to be in a section of the
restaurant. Then you couldn't be in any section of the
restaurant. Then you couldn't be in your office building. Then
you had to be outside. Then you had to be 25 feet from the door
outside.
And when you open the door to this, regardless of what you
feel about cigarettes or not, it is illustrative of how the
government operates: one step at a time. And I urge us to be
very cautious as we start to take away what is one of our
fundamental freedoms.
I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. This is not something
probably you anticipated a year ago, to think, ``Gosh, wouldn't
it be great sometime in 2012 if I could go be on a
congressional hearing and just get berated publicly? Wouldn't
that be just so fun?'' So I thank you for being here.
And for Dr. Mitchell from Southwestern, I am a Southwestern
graduate. It is an honor to be able to have you here. I did not
know that you were attending, a Southwestern leader as well. So
it is an honor that you are here as well and to be able to
represent an institution that I am also an alumni of.
I have been fascinated to be able to hear the testimony of
what this hearing is about. I have heard this hearing is about
trying to prevent women from getting contraceptives and women's
health. That is not what this hearing is about. That is a
twisting off, to try to say that this is about some barbaric
group trying to limit access of women to health. That is not
what this hearing is about.
I had the implication that this hearing is about the fact
that government is more compassionate than the church, that
they care more about people than the church does, and that
there are obvious needs here and the church is so out of step
with culture that they don't know the issues of medication, and
so the government is more compassionate.
I have even heard that this is about whether you will be
jailed or not. It is an interesting comment to realize that
there is a fine coming down on your organization of
multimillions of dollars if you don't behave according to the
administration's wishes.
Now, that creates an interesting conversation we might be
able to have at another moment, in that all of you represent
nonprofit institutions; is that correct? Do you pay Federal
taxes? No. None of your institutions, because you are a
nonprofit institution.
Do you realize the administration has said publicly
numerous times that the penalties involved in the President's
health-care plan are not penalties, they are fines--I am sorry,
they are not fines, they are taxes. Well, if that is so, my
recommendation to you--of course, I am not an attorney--if
these penalties are to be considered taxes, not penalties, and
you are a nonprofit organization that pays no taxes, perhaps
these things do not apply to you, then, because you pay no tax.
Now, if they want to argue in front of the Supreme Court
that these are penalties, not taxes--which apparently they are
set up in March to argue that they are taxes and that they have
the power to tax--then it will be interesting to see how the
administration splits that hair, as well.
I have heard today that this is an attack on the
administration, about religious liberties. Well, I don't agree,
though there are areas that we could discuss about Hosanna-
Tabor and the administration fighting all the way to the
Supreme Court to try to be involved in the hiring of ministers,
which the Supreme Court, in a rare 9-0, disputed the
administration and said ministers have the ability to be able
to hire--or churches have the ability to be able to hire
ministers as they choose. We could discuss how the Army is
choosing to try to go in and edit the sermons of their
chaplains.
But today this hearing is about, can this administration or
any administration say, ``I know your doctrine, but I have a
different doctrine, and you will change your doctrine to my
doctrine or I will fine you?'' That is what today is about. Can
any administration step into a church and say, ``I disagree
with your doctrine; you will change it to mine?''
Now, I have a historical question for that. And, Dr.
Mitchell, I am going to pick on you because I am a Southwestern
grad, as well.
In 1800--this was referenced earlier--Thomas Jefferson
wrote an interesting letter to Danbury Baptist, actually, and
made a reference that has been used over and over again about
the wall of separation between church and state. He was
assuring Danbury Baptist that the State would not go after the
church in its doctrines and its teachings.
Am I correct or incorrect on that?
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Yes, you are correct.
Mr. Lankford. Would you like to allude to any of that at
all, about that particular letter that has been referenced a
lot?
Mr. Craig Mitchell. Well, the intent was to protect the
church from the State.
Mr. Lankford. From the State. Not protecting the State from
the church.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. That is right.
Mr. Lankford. So, the other Dr. Mitchell, do you want to
comment on that, as well?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. I would. And I should disclose that I
am also a Southwestern Seminary alumnus.
Mr. Lankford. Well, we are loaded here. This may be the
first time in congressional history that three Southwestern
grads are in the same room.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. In our offices at the Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention, there is a portrait that hangs above the fireplace
of John Leland, who was the Baptist minister who had entree to
that discussion with the Danbury Baptists and our early
founders. Religious liberty is a Baptist principle through and
through, and I am happy to say we have had, historically, a
contribution to make in that area.
Mr. Lankford. Was that doctrine intended, again, to--or was
that letter intended to say to the folks at the Danbury Baptist
Association, ``We will make sure as a Federal Government we are
not intruding on your religious rights?''
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Yes, sir, that is absolutely right.
Mr. Lankford. Any other comments on that before I yield
back my time?
With that, thank you, gentlemen, very much for being here.
I am honored to be able to have your time here and to be able
to be here to express this on this key issue.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
We now go to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, first of all, I have always been one of personal
accountability and personal responsibility. So when you go
trampling on the Constitution, you get the full regards of the
Constitution. I am tired of politicians and constitutional
attorneys picking and choosing the language of which they want
to disdain for the Constitution to show that it upholds.
We have referenced the letter from the Danbury Baptists,
and I think it is appropriate that we go through the full
context so that it is part of the record, and so I would like
to recite it. This is from a letter of Jefferson to the Danbury
Baptists on January 1, 1802.
And he says, ``Gentlemen, the affectionate sentiments of
esteem approbation which you are so good as to express toward
me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the
highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous
pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion
as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the
discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to no
other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers
of government reach actions only and not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should
`make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State.
``Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with
sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which
tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has
no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
``I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and
blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender
you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of
my high respect and esteem. Thomas Jefferson. January 1,
1802.''
With all due respect, when the President asked for a
problem, he is just like any of us, he is a man, he is right
and he is wrong. He has stepped into this, he has made it a
problem. And who better than another President, Thomas
Jefferson, to set the record straight?
We need to start looking at the full context, not picking
and choosing the simple words that we want to utilize to
support ourselves. We need to get back to the doctrine and
understand the full discourse of how we look at the separation
of the First Amendment and religious freedom. And I am tired of
people picking and choosing, because when we look back at
history, the constitutional scholars who say that they
represent it do more damage than they do support.
And, with that, I would like to yield to my good friend
from South Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank my colleague.
And very briefly I want to try and expand this conversation
a little bit. We have heard a lot of discussion today about
Catholic hospitals or Jewish charities, but it strikes me that
we should extend the conversation into the private sector, as
well.
And I would suggest to you, and I ask Reverend Harrison,
for example, if I am a devote Lutheran businessman and I have
75 people working for me, am I not as aggrieved as the church
is if I am forced to offer these particular services to my
employees?
Rev. Harrison. I think, in fact, you are, as a matter of
fact.
And even as you said that, I can think of a wonderful
family that has treated its employees like gold for its entire
existence. Employees love to work at this large organization
that I am thinking of. And yet these are very devote people who
absolutely loathe acting against their consciences.
Let me--at the risk of taking some of your time, Mr.
Congressman, I really loathe the partisan nature of this
discussion. Ninety-eight percent of what I do, what the
Missouri Synod does, is completely bipartisan. We represent a
large church body. The constituents are in some way evenly
divided between Democrats and Republican. We do not operate in
a partisan way.
I also stand at an alter regularly to administer the
sacrament. And in the prayers of the church, I pray personally
for the President, his wellbeing, and the wellbeing of our
Nation. I personally get on my knees every single morning in my
office and I pray for the President of this country and this
government.
Luther bids us in a Small Catechism defense, ``Speak well
of him and put the best construction on everything.'' I know
this is a different game here; this is hardcore politics. I am
here for one reason. I am here because there is a narrow but
very significant provision in the HHS provisions that is, I
believe, very dangerous to religious people with our kind of
convictions. And I believe it is also dangerous to any
religious people who have unique convictions. So that is why I
am here.
Mr. Mulvaney. Reverend, ordinarily we are very protective
of our time here. I thank my colleague for yielding it to me.
And I can assure you that I have never been more pleased to
yield it to someone else. So thank you, sir, for your comments.
With that, I yield back.
Rev. Harrison. My apologies.
Chairman Issa. We now go to what I believe will be the last
of the members of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Walsh, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for enduring this last couple of hours.
My friend from Virginia said this hearing is a sham, and he
and I may agree on that, because for the life of me I don't
know why you all had to be called up here in front of us. Our
Founders placed you and your concerns on this issue on a higher
standing than we all are. So there is a big part of me that
wants to apologize to each and every one of you for having to
be here.
This is not about women. This is not about contraceptives.
We know--you have said it, we have said it up here--this is
about religious freedom, this is about religious liberties. We
could be talking about anyone, a Republican or Democrat who
doesn't want to serve in a war because of their religious
preferences. We could be talking about a Muslim hospital that
doesn't want to serve a particular food in their hospital
cafeteria because of their deep-seated religious beliefs. So
let's put that aside.
Thomas Jefferson was referenced. We all famously know that
Thomas Jefferson requested three things on his tombstone: the
father of the University of Virginia, the author of the
Declaration of Independence, and the author of Virginia's bill
of establishing religious freedoms. And in that bill, he said,
``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and
tyrannical.''
John Garvey, who is the President of the Catholic
University of America, who I believe will speak in the next
panel, put it perfectly. He said, Consider these two health
policies--consider these two insurance policies. Policy A, an
employer is required to provide its employees health insurance
that covers birth control. Policy B, an employer is required to
provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance
company is required to cover birth control.
As he says, and it almost made me laugh, I can see where
someone could disagree with both of those policies or agree
with both of those policies, but for the life of me I don't
understand what the difference is between those two policies,
and I don't know how you can agree with one and disagree with
another.
I have a father in Saint Mary's Catholic Church back in
Woodstock, Illinois, who told me last week that after the
President's attempt at a compromise, he is even more
disappointed. As he said, it looks like an accounting gimmick.
First, it was an insult to our liberty. Now, it is an insult to
our intellect, as well.
Did any of you--maybe I missed this earlier on our panel--
support ObamaCare in its beginning, 2 or 3 years ago?
Bishop Lori. The Catholic Church is on record as supporting
access to health care since 1919.
Mr. Walsh. Agreed. Did you support this legislation?
Bishop Lori. We supported the principle of universal
access, but we did not support the bill and all of its
particulars.
Mr. Walsh. Reverend.
Rev. Harrison. It is our religious policy, believing there
is a strict separation between the two kingdoms, the religious
and the governmental, that our church shouldn't be spouting off
on every government issue. So we took no official position on--
you guys do a great job of that.
Mr. Walsh. Okay. Spouting off.
Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. No, as Baptists, we don't take a
position as a denomination per se. But no one, either, has
recommended or commended--
Mr. Walsh. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Religious people on both sides of the
aisle can agree or disagree on larger questions of health care,
but both should be extremely distressed when the religious
freedoms of anyone in America is threatened.
Mr. Walsh. Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. Craig Mitchell. As the previous Dr. Mitchell said, the
Southern Baptists don't take official positions on this, but--
Mr. Walsh. Okay.
Mr. Craig Mitchell [continuing]. We weren't for it.
Mr. Walsh. My time is running out. I have two quickies.
Rabbi, why do you think the President--give me a 20-second
answer--is pursuing this so vigorously?
Rabbi Soloveichik. I really--I asked the same question. And
I just don't understand why he is seemingly so--in this
situation, the President and the administration just do not
seem sensitive to the religious concern--
Mr. Walsh. Okay. Just as my time runs out, let me quickly
rephrase the question my good friend from South Carolina asked.
At the end of the day, if it comes down to listening to your
God and/or listening to your government, where are you going to
fall?
Rev. Harrison. Thomas Jefferson, I have his Bible from the
Smithsonian, the famous Bible he cut all to pieces. And I would
have something to say against some of the bits he took out, but
he did leave in Matthew 22. ``They say unto him, Caesar's. Then
saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.''
Mr. Walsh. Is it safe to assume that that is where all of
you would fall?
Rabbi Soloveichik. And I would add, Congressman, since you
mentioned the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, of which
Jefferson was rightly so proud and to which Jews and all
Americans have a great debt to him for that, I don't remember
the exact text, but after establishing religious freedom, the
actual bill that he composed concludes by saying something
like, ``And if any other legislature does seek to limit this
freedom, we are hereby stating that they do so in contravention
of natural right.''
Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
If I could ask our panel, would you remain for just 10
short additional minutes for the last two Congressmen that we
had by unanimous consent?
With that, the gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLauro. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and also
the ranking member.
I just want to express my view on the new guideline. I
think that in releasing national guidelines for preventive
health coverage by 28 States before them that includes
contraceptive services but a whole variety of other services as
well, the administration made a strong and long overdue stand
on behalf of women's health, and at the same time upholding the
religious liberty of churches, mosques, synagogues, and related
institutions.
Last Friday--and even though, as I said earlier, the
guidelines exempted churches and other houses of worship, as it
should--I believe in that exemption--the President provided
more flexibility to charities, to hospitals, and to other kinds
of religious organizations.
Hospitals are not just providers but employers. As
providers, nothing has changed. They do not have to prescribe,
dispense, provide for any contraceptive services. As an
employer, there are kinds of employer regulations on the books
that faith-based institutions are bound to respect. Suppose
someone decided not to pay the minimum wage. Would we accept
that?
Now, just further, one note, is that the constitutional
issue, constitutional expert David Boies, who appeared on TV
last week, said there really isn't a constitutional issue
involved in this issue. The First Amendment to the Constitution
prohibits establishment of religion, meaning that you can't
have the government saying that you have to follow certain
religious beliefs, and guarantees free exercise. That means
everyone is free to exercise the religion they choose. There is
nothing in the Constitution that says that an employer,
regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn't
subject to the same rules as every other employer.
I have a particular question that I would like to ask, and
this is about, actually, contraception as a medical treatment.
As I was preparing for the hearing today, I was contacted by
people who wanted the committee and the public to understand
that contraceptives are often used to treat potentially life-
threatening diseases. Let me just give you a couple of
examples.
We heard an account from a woman in Kentucky, and she said,
``Birth control for me isn't about preventing conception. I
have to take the pill because endometriosis runs in my family.
When I was 5, I watched my mother suffer a massive hemorrhage
because of the disease. My doctor put me on the pill to stave
off the disease. To me, birth control means preserving my
fertility and my life.''
This woman may not be able to have children later if she
does not take this pill for medical reasons. It is medical
reasons.
We heard from a number of doctors. One account from a
doctor in Chicago: ``My patient is 45 years old. She has four
children. She suffered a stroke 2 years ago. To prevent future
strokes, she needs to take a blood thinner. Her condition is
complicated because she experiences heavy bleeding. An IUD is
the safest option to reduce that bleeding. Her husband works as
a facilities engineer at a large Catholic hospital. His
insurance will not cover contraception for any reason.'' An
employer's refusal to cover this necessary medication creates a
hardship for her. It is about $1,000 in the cost for that
medical device.
I am going to give you a personal example. I am a survivor
of ovarian cancer. This March will be 25 years. There are so
many studies--I am not a doctor, I am not a scientist, but
there are medical studies today that show--and we can give you
all the citations--that women who do take the pill have a much
lower risk of developing ovarian cancer: after 1 year of use,
10 to 12 percent lower. After 5 years of use, 50 percent lower.
Over 15,000 American women died because of ovarian cancer just
last year. I am alive because of the grace of God and because
of biomedical research.
And I just have to ask each of you, are you morally opposed
to allowing women who work in your facilities, many of whom are
non-religious, non-whatever the denomination--they were not
hired for a religious purpose. Are you opposed to allowing them
to take a pill or to get an IUD in cases where their lives
depend on it and when we know that it could lower the risk of
ovarian cancer?
Chairman Issa. The gentleman lady's time has expired, but--
Ms. DeLauro. I have 25 seconds left, according to my clock
here.
Chairman Issa. Actually, you are 29 over.
Ms. DeLauro. Oh, I am sorry.
Chairman Issa. No problem.
But you may answer her question.
Rev. Harrison. I would like to respond that our health plan
will, in fact, cover contraceptives used for such health
reasons.
And let me also say, Martin Luther said one time,
``Doctrine is heaven, life is Earth.'' I was an inner-city
pastor for quite a while. Spent a lot of time in slums all over
the world. And these ears of this pastor have heard every
possible situation and malady of life you could ever imagine.
We have principles that guide us as Lutherans. We know that
those principles meet real life and the real lives of people
are hurting, and we accommodate wherever we can. We are not
rigid kooks. We care about people, and that is our business.
Ms. DeLauro. And this rule accommodates women's health
services as well as religious liberty.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Anyone else who wants to just answer her
question briefly?
Bishop.
Bishop Lori. Sure. Let me just say that people who come to
work for us, whether it is the diocese or Catholic Charities or
a university, they are coming to be part of a mission. These
things are not side businesses; they are part of our mission.
And, second, our Catholic moral theology, as I have
indicated, recognizes that the same drug can be used for
different purposes with different effects, and our plans
reflect that. So we should be given credit for the nuance and
the understanding that we have already brought to the table.
All the more reason for the government not to move in and try
to force our hand now.
Chairman Issa. So it is basically true, to the lady's
question, all of you, to the extent that you are involved in
health care, would provide health care for the reasons that did
not go directly against your faith, such as the Bishop said.
Ms. DeLauro. As this rule does not go against anyone's
faith. It provides an accommodation--
Chairman Issa. We now go to the gentleman from South
Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mulvaney. And I thank the chairman and the ranking
member and the other members of the committee for the
opportunity.
I am not a member of this committee, and I do value this
chance to ask very briefly, follow up on the question I was
speaking on a few minutes ago, which deals not with the impact
of this bill, not necessarily just the exemption, but the bill
on men and women of religious conviction who own and operate
businesses and have employees.
And I encourage you gentleman, each of you, to consider
that and when you leave here today to contemplate that, as
well. Because that infringement of religious freedoms existed
before the current discussion about the HHS rule and, even
assuming a satisfactory resolution of religious exemptions for
religious organizations, will exist after that resolution.
Men and women of religious conviction were put in this
position at the very initial passing of this law, and even if
religious organizations are ultimately exempted in a way that
you gentlemen would find acceptable, I would put it to you that
members of your congregations will still be similarly situated,
and still be put in the same condition.
That being said, and finally, I have a request,
specifically directed to Your Excellency Bishop Lori, but also
to the rest of you gentlemen as well. There were various
organizations that I felt were very accurately described today
by colleagues on the other side as having supported bits and
pieces or all or part of this legislation when it was
originally debated several years ago. And I would encourage
each of you to consider the possibility that using a secular
Federal Government to help advance religious principles,
regardless of how admirable they might be--I'm familiar with
the Catholic social justice teaching and doctrine, but to use
the Federal Government to accomplish those things may in both
the short run, as we are learning today, and in the long run be
unwise. And to paraphrase many politicians, many great thinkers
from the beginning of this country up to recent times, I would
suggest to you gentlemen, all, that the Federal Government that
is big enough to give to you all of the social justice that you
pursue is also big enough to take from you all of the religious
freedoms that you have.
And with that I yield back, and I thank the chairman.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Mulvaney. Happily.
Chairman Issa. As we come to a close, I don't want to
extend the time any further. I just want to sort of give you
one opportunity, because there was an allegation that we were
conducting a sham from this side of the dais. I will deal with
that one in my own way, but your comments on the opportunity
you have had today, and whether or not the committee has been
fair to your opportunity to have your views, and whether you
would do it again if asked to come for a similar hearing.
Basically, do you think this was a sham relative to your
side of the dais? Bishop.
Bishop Lori. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
I'd just say that I bring to the table a commitment to
religious freedom and to the church's social teaching that goes
well beyond the next election cycle. If there is one thing the
Catholic Church can do, it can sort of think for the long haul.
We are a long-haul church, and what we recognize is that if the
principle of religious freedom is breached now, it's not going
to be around for the long haul. That's why I'm here. That's why
I got up at 3:15 this morning.
Chairman Issa. Before anyone else answers, I do have to put
my plug in. I have no bishops. I'm not a Roman Catholic. My
sister Peggy, at Siena Heights College in Adrian, Michigan,
would feel that it was appropriate that you know what a great
job that Catholic University did in at least getting me to this
limited position I now hold.
Anyone else want to comment?
Mr. C. Ben Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, religious liberty is not
a partisan political issue, in my view. It is the foundation of
liberal democracy grounded in human dignity in the image of God
and humanity. Therefore, I will happily, as the bishop said,
get up at 3 a.m., if necessary, and defend the principle of
religious liberty and freedom of conscience before a Republican
audience, a Democratic audience, or an Independent audience, or
anyone else. It is who I am. It is my committed belief, and I
believe it should be protected.
Chairman Issa. Rabbi.
Rabbi Soloveichik. Chairman Issa, I thank you for having us
all here today. The notion that we are here to push a political
agenda could not be more untrue.
I would just note, one of the Representatives referred to
the icons being held up as Democratic icons. I just want to say
as a religious American, as an American, and as an American
clergyman, that someone like Martin Luther King, Jr., is not a
Democratic icon or a Republican icon; he is an American icon,
and that's because we all as Americans care about liberty and
equality as the two great pillars of what America is all about.
You asked, would we come here again? I would certainly come
here again, but I hope that I don't have to, because--not
because we haven't enjoyed your hospitality, but because I hope
that the administration realizes that they have made a mistake,
and that they return us as a country to the principles of
liberty that has guided this country for hundreds of years.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
I want to thank all of you. We are going to quickly take a
recess and set up for the next panel, and many of them are now
on short fuses. So thank you all. We will be back in about 3
minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Issa. We will now hear testimony from our second
panel of witnesses. And with that, I would note that Professor
John Garvey is president of Catholic University of America. And
because we have run quite late, we will be taking his
testimony, then if there are any specific questions for Mr.
Garvey, we will take them out of order, then Mr. Garvey will
remain as long as he can as the other panel go through their
testimony. This is an accommodation that I hope you all
understand.
And our second witness will be introduced by the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. William Thierfelder is the president of Belmont Abbey.
He is the 20th president of my alma mater, having served in
that capacity since 2004. He is a licensed psychologist; had a
distinguished career not only as an NCAA Division I athlete,
but an Olympian. He and his children live in the suburbs of
Charlotte in Gastonia, my hometown, and, most importantly, he
is the husband of--to Mary. And so I'm very proud that he is
here today, and thank you for the work that you have taken on
at Belmont Abbey.
Chairman Issa. There is an advantage to having a detailed
introduction.
With that, we recognize also Dr. Oliver, who is president
of East Texas Baptist University. I'm sure there will be other
alumni there.
Dr. Garrett is senior vice president of the academic
affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, previously mentioned.
And Dr. Laura Champion is medical director of the Calvin
College health services.
And is Barry Lynn here? Barry Lynn was invited by the
committee; apparently is not here. Would you please remove the
name?
And with that, pursuant to the rules of the committee, we
will swear in our second panel. Would you please rise to take
the oath, and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Issa. Let the record indicate all witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Please take your seats, and as previously announced, Mr.
Garvey, you are up first.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN H. GARVEY, PRESIDENT, THE CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA; WILLIAM K. THIERFELDER, PRESIDENT,
BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE; SAMUEL W. ``DUB'' OLIVER, PRESIDENT,
EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY; ALLISON DABBS GARRETT, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN
UNIVERSITY; AND LAURA CHAMPION, M.D., MEDICAL DIRECTOR, CALVIN
COLLEGE HEALTH SERVICES

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. GARVEY

Mr. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to the committee for inviting me to speak here today. I am the
president of Catholic University of America.
Let me say a couple of words about the January 20th final
regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services has
promulgated, and then a word or two about the February 10th
revision.
On January 20th, HHS announced a rule that requires most
health insurance plans to cover with no copay sterilization
procedures and prescription contraceptions including pills that
act after fertilization to induce abortions. The rule includes
a fairly narrow exemption. It doesn't cover colleges and
universities like my own. It doesn't cover religiously
affiliated hospitals and health care systems, or religious
social service organizations like Catholic Charities.
Consider the effect that this rule has on the Catholic
University of America, my institution. We teach our students in
our classes that marriage is a sacrament in which spouses share
in the creative work of God. We teach that it is wrong for
couples to close themselves off to the possibility of life. We
teach that abortion is a grave wrong, and we reinforce these
messages in the work of student life and in campus ministry, in
our student organizations, and in the daily interactions of
faculty and staff with students.
The rule forces the university to violate its convictions
in two ways. First, it requires the university to pay for drugs
and procedures that we view as morally wrong. A few minutes ago
the Congressman from Illinois referred to a provision in
Jefferson's bill for religious liberty. Let me quote again what
Jefferson said. Jefferson said that, ``it was sinful and
tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves.'' How much more evil to compel
financial support for putting those opinions into practice? The
regulations order Catholic University to become the provider of
contraceptives, sterilizations and abortions for its students,
faculty and staff.
Second, the rule forces us to deny one part of our
operation what we affirm in another. We teach our students in
our classes, in our sacraments, and in the activities of
student life that sterilization, and contraception, and
abortion are wrong. The rule requires our staff to offer these
very services to our students as part of our health insurance
program. It makes hypocrites of us in our moral teaching.
In response to widespread criticism of the rule, the
President last week announced a scheme that was designed to
allay concerns about religious freedom while still providing
the same services to all women affected by the final rule. The
proposed solution is this: When religious institutions like
Catholic University object to including mandated services in
their health plans, our insurance company will provide them.
It's hard to see how this revision changes the picture.
Greg Manchu, an economics professor at Harvard University,
makes this observation: Ultimately, he said, all insurance
costs are passed on to the purchaser. So I cannot see how the
February 10th revision is different in any way from the final
rule other than using slightly different words to describe it.
In both cases the Federal Government orders us to buy an
insurance policy. In both cases the policy must cover mandated
services. In both cases we pay the bill. The only real change
is that the insurance company, rather than the university,
notifies subscribers that we cover contraceptives.
The administration suggests that there is a difference
because insurance companies will discover that their costs
actually go down. Wider contraceptive use will mean fewer
pregnancies and lower indirect costs like productivity losses.
If there are no added costs, the implication is, Catholic
University won't really have to pay for the mandated services.
What if I called this the shazam theory? It resolves the
intrusion on religious liberty by making the compelled
contributions magically disappear. But there are two problems
with the theory. One, I suspect that the proposed cost savings
are imaginary and not real. We do know that mandated services
have a cost. Senators Shaheen and Murray and Boxer have
estimated the cost of contraceptives alone at $600 per woman
per year. These costs will certainly be included in the price
of our insurance policy. The insurance companies haven't
hesitated in the past to cover the cost of things like gym
memberships that actually do save money. They haven't done this
yet with contraceptives. Maybe they haven't yet discovered the
hidden savings in the administration's shazam theory. But I
worry that this is a case where politicians have made a bet
that they cannot with the private market, and the stakes they
are playing with are our religious freedom.
I said there were two problems, and the second one is this.
From a moral point of view, the cost savings don't really
matter even if they are real. Suppose, just to take an extreme,
an imaginary example, the administration believably could
reduce overall health care costs by covering infanticide by
young mothers who found their children a burden. And suppose
that HHS devised a plan under which the necessary drugs would
be charged to Catholic University's account. Would we have no
moral objection to that plan if the government could show that
it saved us money? The point is that we shouldn't be forced to
pay for activities and processes that we think are immoral.
I think a more likely explanation for the rule is that HHS
is acting on a political agenda about how women should live
their sex lives. The February 10th announcement discloses this
agenda in fairly plain terms. Here is what it says: ``A broader
exemption,'' the announcement states, ``would lead to more
employees having to pay out of pocket for contraceptive
services, thus making it less likely that they would use
contraceptives, which would undermine the benefits described
above.'' HHS might wish to increase the rate of abortions and
sterilizations and contraceptive use by students and employees
at the Catholic University of America. It has shown a desire to
conscript the university and its insurer in the service of that
agenda. But it is our religious belief that these activities
are wrong, and we think that a decent respect for the principle
of religious liberty should leave us free to act on our belief.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garvey follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.061

Chairman Issa. Thank you, and as promised, I will recognize
myself. I'm only going to take 1 minute.
Just to review. If you--if you save money by some procedure
that you find morally wrong within the teaching of your church,
you still wouldn't do it.
Mr. Garvey. We certainly wouldn't.
Chairman Issa. And if the government determines there is
money savings by this procedure, you, in fact, shouldn't be
forced to do it on behalf of saving the government money.
Mr. Garvey. The Catholic Church is not alone in teaching
and believing that it is wrong to do an immoral act in order to
save money or achieve some other desirable end.
Chairman Issa. And the previous panel said, basically,
Caesar can do it if Caesar wants to; just don't have us do it
for Caesar. So, let me just ask the question. Since Planned
Parenthood receives huge amounts of money, contraceptions are
given out at Federal and State level at no cost to people
regularly, hasn't government already, under the Secretary's
auspices, determined that they are giving out contraceptions?
I'm not going to talk about all of the procedures, but
contraceptions. They already give it out at government expense
to people who apply for it in most, if not all, areas. So in
other words, the Secretary's $600 saves money. She is already
doing that with government money, isn't she?
Mr. Garvey. The controversy that we are discussing today is
sometimes presented as a conflict, or a contest, or a dispute,
or a weighing of the rights of religious liberty on the one
hand, and the rights of reproductive freedom on the other hand.
Chairman Issa. Yeah, but I was--
Mr. Garvey. Let me emphasize that our objection--we are not
here objecting to the fact that--I mean, women who attend
Catholic University are still free and able to purchase
contraceptives and these other services. The fight is about
whether we should have to pay for it.
Chairman Issa. Well, exactly, but you already pay for it
through your taxes. We all pay for it through out taxes if
government gives it away. The fact is that government is
already doing something that this rule is telling you to do,
even though it is objectionable to your basic tenets of faith;
is that right?
Mr. Garvey. I think so.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Anyone else have questions for our first witness? He is
going to remain as long as he can.
Go ahead, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Just one question. President Garvey, is your
objective to the payment, or the fact that an employee or
students are receiving these services at all, or both?
Mr. Garvey. We are here today because we object to the
second, not the first. There are other ways of solving this
problem, and we might very well object to them. For example,
here is--here is a solution that doesn't interfere with our
religious liberty. The government itself could provide these
services to young people and to employees at no cost to either
us, or the employees, or our insurer. We would object to that
as well, because we believe as a Catholic university that it is
part of our concern to attend to the moral formation of our
students, but that's not an objection about our religious
liberty.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. All right.
I just wanted to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a
list of Catholic schools in 20 different States that currently
offer some form of health care insurance for contraceptives.
Chairman Issa. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.067

Chairman Issa. Mr. Quigley. You had a quick question.
Mr. Quigley. Sure. In the previous panel, Doctor, the
question was, there is also legislation that we are discussing
that would take this exemption to all private-sector employees
as well. Would you--do you support that? I mean, do you believe
that the private--if an employer of a large corporation, the
owner of a large corporation or a small one, has the same moral
objections that you do, do you think that we should be able to
force them to provide contraception?
Mr. Garvey. First of all, Congressman, I appreciate the
promotion. I'm not a real doctor. I'm a lawyer.
Mr. Quigley. I'm sorry. I can't--I can't see the signs from
here. I apologize.
Mr. Garvey. Would I take the same position with respect to
private institutions' or private employers' religious
objections? Yes, I would. That would leave us in no worse
position than we are before the passage of the regulation, and
I think that private individuals and not just churches and
religious institutions have rights of religious freedom.
Mr. Quigley. So, the question comes, how far do you take
that? To those other people's--we represent people of all
faiths. Many disagree with this, and they believe that
contraception is perfectly okay. At what point do you lose
control over them that--you know, besides perhaps an assistant
professor's wife that is employed? What part of the bargain is
there for all manners of university toward this end? Never
mind--never mind in the private sector. How far do you go with
your beliefs influencing millions of other women?
Mr. Garvey. That is a--that's a really important question,
Congressman. And let me suggest that this body has provided the
perfect answer to that question. When you passed the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, you said that rights to religious
freedom should not be indefeasible; that there are some
occasions when they have to yield. But what the government has
to show in order to defeat a claim of religious liberty is that
the government has a compelling interest in doing what it's
doing, and that they are employing the least restrictive
alternative to interfere with the religious freedom. And the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act that I'm referring to applies
to private employers no less than religious institutions.
Mr. Quigley. But in the end someone has to make that
choice.
Mr. Garvey. Yes, they do. Congress has made that choice for
us.
Mr. Quigley. And I understand, but we make these choices
all the time, and some of them are difficult. I mean, some of
them are obvious. I have the example of this Louisiana justice
who refused to marry interracial couples because, as he said, I
found out I can't be a justice of the peace and have a
conscience. That was his belief, his heartfelt religious
belief, however horribly misguided.
We said today a minority even of one matters, and we can't
trample their religious beliefs, you know. Where do we draw the
line with someone like this? Where do we draw the line with
others whose faith is just as important to them, Christian
Scientists and others who don't believe--and other groups that
don't believe in transfusions, you know? If they have a health
care clinic, or a hospital, or other faith--it just seems so
out of sync for us to imagine that that would be okay. But if
you follow the same stream of thought, there is really not that
much difference from what you are professing today; projecting
your faith, which I deeply appreciate and respect, on others,
millions of women who have some right to make those choices
that don't actually work in the church.
Mr. Garvey. Let me just say one more time, Congressman,
that we are not trying to impose our beliefs on our employees
or our students. The question that we are discussing is whether
the university should have to pay for activities that it views
as immoral.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. And it is going to be a full 5
minutes for Members later.
Do you have something briefly? Please, go ahead. The
gentleman is recognized.
Mr. McHenry. I, like the chairman, I actually have just a
couple of briefs questions.
Mr. Garvey, what's the name of the institution where you
serve as president?
Mr. Garvey. The Catholic University of America.
Mr. McHenry. And what church are you affiliated with?
Mr. Garvey. The Catholic Church.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. And when employees seek employment from
your institution, are they aware that you are affiliated with
the Catholic Church?
Mr. Garvey. Yes, they are. As part of the--as part of the
hiring process in the first place, before somebody is hired, we
have a discussion about the mission of the university. As part
of the intake of new employees in the human resources
department, we give them a statement of the university's
mission, and they need to check off that they have--that they
have received it and actually support the mission of the
university.
Mr. McHenry. And you adhere to the tenets of the Catholic
Church?
Mr. Garvey. Yes.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. So my point here, Mr. Chairman, is a
very simple one; that individuals seeking employment from the
Catholic University of America go in understanding the tenets
of the church, and, therefore, the adherence that the
institution must, you know, follow, and the tenets the
institution must follow, and so if they don't like that, if
they choose to go somewhere else regardless of their faith,
they have that free will to do that.
And so with that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I think the gentleman--I would gather that
the rules of the Catholic Church are not new or unknown to
others, and I think you said that very well.
With that, we will continue on with our witnesses.
Doctor.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. THIERFELDER

Mr. Thierfelder. Yes. Members of the committee----
Chairman Issa. Did you get the mic?
Mr. Thierfelder. Thank you. Sorry about that.
Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, members of the
committee, my name is Dr. Bill Thierfelder. I am the president
of Belmont Abbey College, and I greatly appreciate you taking
the time to listen to my really grave concerns about this
health thing and service mandate.
Maybe to better understand who we are and why this issue of
religious liberty is so important to us, let me just begin with
the first sentence of our vision statement, which says: Belmont
Abbey College finds its center in Jesus Christ. Our mission is
to educate students in the liberal arts and sciences so that in
all things God may be glorified. In this endeavor we are guided
by the Catholic intellectual tradition and the Benedictine
spirit of prayer and learning. Emphasizing Benedictine
hospitality, we welcome a diverse body of students, and we
provide them with an education that will enable them to lead
lives of integrity, to succeed professionally, to become
responsible citizens, and to be a blessing to themselves and
others.
Our Benedictine tradition, which is guided by the rule of
St. Benedict, which is really a scripturally based guide for
how to live in community with one another, chapter 53 of that
guide is on the welcoming of guests. We welcome each guest in
persona Christi, as Christ, and we do that regardless of
someone's faith or background. We say, come on in. We love you.
That's who we are.
If you have never seen our campus, I, first of all, would
invite you all to come. And I would love to have you over, and
have a cup of coffee, and get to know you better. But if you
have been to our campus, it's beautiful. You will see the red
brick, Gothic-structured buildings that are there. And when
those monks first arrived there almost 136 years ago, there was
nothing on that property but two shacks with holes in the
roofs. Those monks literally dug up the red clay, formed them
into bricks, dried them in the sun, and placed those bricks
there over 130 years ago. So this integration of our faith and
the mission of the college, is even more visible when you just
see the buildings, the layout of the campus itself.
When you drive up the main drive, we have a basilica, which
is our church. By the way, some of that funding came from St.
Katharine Drexel. That church is actually connected to the
monastery where we have the monks that live at Belmont Abbey.
Connected to the monastery is actually the main administration
building where my office is. So to demonstrate here that our
integration, the sense of who we are as Catholic, and our
mission as a college can't be separated. It's essential to who
we are.
And now our struggle for religious liberty really began in
earnest about 4 years ago when we were investigated for
discrimination by the EEOC because we did not provide abortion,
voluntary sterilization and contraceptives in our health care
plan. When the mandate was announced, we had a heightened
sensitivity to this issue because we viewed it as really
another tactic, in this case maybe an extreme tactic, to coerce
us into providing services that we find morally objectionable.
Abbot Placid Solari is the head of the monastic community.
He is also the chancellor of Belmont Abbey College. He and I
meet regularly. We speak all the time about matters of the
college, and so when this came up, we obviously discussed the
mandate when it first came out in August. And really at his
urging and leadership we both agreed that the best course was
to take a defensive action by filing a lawsuit against the
Federal Government, which was no, you know, small thing for a
little place like Belmont Abbey College to do, but we thought
that was what we needed to do at that time based on our
experience.
We presented the idea to the board of trustees, who
unanimously approved the action, and with the help of the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, we filed a lawsuit against
the Department of Health and Human Services. The response of
Kathleen Sebelius was somewhat bewildering to us. We could not
figure out what a year extension had to do with the issue that
we were faced with. Basically no amount of time would make the
morally objectionable mandate somehow acceptable to us.
Then, most recently, the President held a press
conversation to offer what I believe was a fatally flawed
compromise. The reason I say this is that the President does
not have the right or the authority to take away someone's
religious freedom. And therefore, when talking about or
offering a compromise, I don't understand how he can give back
something that he had no right to take in the first place.
So in this particular case, we specifically do object to
being coerced into providing contraception, sterilization, and
abortion-inducing drugs into our health care plan. But make no
mistake, as important as those are to us, the underlying
principle here is about our religious liberty. I believe you
will discover that there are tens of millions, if not more, of
Americans of all backgrounds and all faiths who are thinking
just like we are, and I believe that they will not budge an
inch on this issue.
I think there can be no compromise when it comes to our
right to religious freedom and right to conscience, and so I'm
here today to ask for your help. This is an issue worth dying
for, and many have. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice in
order to preserve this right. So please ensure that every
American's right of conscience and religious freedom is fully
protected.
Thank you for considering my plea, and God bless you and
all of your good work.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thierfelder follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.071

Chairman Issa. Dr. Oliver.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. ``DUB'' OLIVER

Mr. Oliver. Good afternoon, Chairman Issa, and Ranking
Member Cummings. I appreciate your invitation to share my
concerns about the serious threat to our religious liberty. My
name the Dub Oliver, and I serve as the president of East Texas
Baptist University, a Christ-centered university founded in
1912.
I would like to raise four main points during my testimony
today. First, East Texas Baptist University has a religious
objection to this mandate, and this mandate violates our
constitutional rights. Baptists in America, by virtue of our
history, are particularly sensitive to coercive government
actions that infringe upon our religious liberty. America's
first Baptist leader Roger Williams had to flee Massachusetts
and found a colony in Providence, RI, because his religious
beliefs were not tolerated.
But it is not just about us. Baptists are alarmed whenever
any religious group's rights are threatened. As the famous
Baptist preacher George W. Truett once said: ``A Baptist would
rise at midnight to plead for absolute religious liberty for
his Catholic neighbor, for his Jewish neighbor, and for
everybody else.''
I would be testifying here even if this mandate only
affected my Catholic neighbors, but I must point out that this
is not just a Catholic issue. While many Christians do not
share the Catholic beliefs against contraception, there is wide
agreement that abortion is wrong. And we believe, based on the
Bible, that life begins at conception. The administration's
mandate covers emergency contraceptives such as Plan B, and
Ella, which even this administration admits interfere with the
human embryo. Our faith and the most recent science tells us
that these drugs cause abortions, but under the
administration's mandate, my university will be required to buy
insurance so that our employees can obtain these drugs for
free, as if there is no difference from these drugs and
penicillin. We believe that is wrong.
Second, we are offended that this administration says that
we aren't religious enough to have our religious beliefs
respected. Last Friday the administration gave final approval
to a rule that includes the narrowest definition of a religious
organization ever to appear in Federal law. ETBU does not
qualify because we teach and serve non-Christians. We accept
students of all faiths and students of no faith. The President
has now promised that he will someday propose another
regulation that will protect groups that the government says
aren't religious enough for an exemption, but are religious
enough for some accommodations.
Why is the government creating different classes of
religious groups and assigning each group different rights?
That is not the government's job. The First Amendment is
designed precisely to stop the government from this sort of
picking and choosing.
Third, this is not about women's health; this is about
whether the government can get away with the trampling on the
rights of religious organizations. It is ridiculous to claim
that organizations like mine don't care about women's health.
As far as I'm aware, no religious group objects to most of the
preventative services in the mandate. In fact, we already cover
preventative services, including contraceptives, under our
employee health plan. We simply object to a few drugs which the
government calls contraceptives because we believe they cause
abortion.
Additionally, I have heard it suggested that this mandate
is necessary to increase access to contraception. The President
said last Friday that close to 99 percent of women use
contraception. I don't know if that number is true, but surely
if the President is quoting this number, he knows there is no
problem with access.
The issue is not about women's health, it's about religious
liberty. It is about whether government will force religious
people and organizations to do something they believe is wrong.
Everyone here wants women to have access to quality health
care. What we are asking is that our religious views be
respected.
To close, perhaps the most frightening aspect of this
entire episode for ETBU is that we have no idea where this road
will end. Today the administration is trying to force us to
provide our employees with abortion-causing drugs. What's next?
If the government can force Catholic monks to dispense birth
control, what can't the government do? If the government can
decide that ETBU is not religious enough to have the right to
religious liberty, what can't the government do? If this
administration can just decide that religious beliefs are less
important than its chosen policy goals, what can't it do?
These questions are alarming, and that is why people all
across the spectrum are joining together out of concern that
this mandate threatens to erode one of our most precious
rights, our religious liberty, guaranteed to us by the First
Amendment. I urge this committee and Congress to ensure
religious liberty for those of us at East Texas Baptist
University and for all Americans.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.075

Chairman Issa. Dr. Garrett.

STATEMENT OF ALLISON DABBS GARRETT

Ms. Garrett. Chairman Issa and members of the committee, my
name is Allison Garrett, and I'm the senior vice president for
academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University. I'm here
today because of my support for religious liberty. I believe in
the rights of institutions like Oklahoma Christian to decline
to include in their health care plan items or services that are
contrary to their religious convictions.
Oklahoma Christian University is affiliated with the
churches of Christ. As a university affiliated with this group
of Protestant churches, we believe strongly in our right to
practice our faith without interference from the government.
While we believe that every person is to be in subjection to
the governing authorities, we respectfully ask that you not
force Oklahoma Christian to choose between following our
sincerely held religious beliefs or violating Federal law.
We oppose the administration's employer mandate requiring
that all health insurance plans cover abortion-causing drugs
for four reasons. First, covering abortion-causing drugs is
objectionable to many employers and plan participants. We have
no concerns about allowing our plan to cover contraception.
Rather, our concerns deal with the coverage of abortion-
inducing drugs. The government should not force institutions
like Oklahoma Christian to offer a health plan that covers
abortifacients like Plan B and Ella. While our views differs
from those of our Catholic friends regarding what our plans
should cover, our views are exactly the same on whether the
government should be able to require individuals or
institutions to violate their religious beliefs. The answer to
that is no.
Second, the exemption is too narrow. As drafted, the
exemption applies only to churches, synagogues and mosques. It
is clear that it would not apply to religious institutions like
Oklahoma Christian University and hundreds of similar religious
colleges, universities, and other organizations. The exemption
requires that an organization have the inculcation of religious
values as its purpose. We teach our students not just to be
proficient as engineers, or historians, or writers, but to
approach their disciplines from a Christian world view. This is
one of the reasons that I chose to leave a corporate career to
work in Christian higher education. We incorporate our faith in
everything we do at Oklahoma Christian, from daily chapel, to
prayer before intramural athletic events, to service activities
around the world, yet the exemption does not apply to us.
The exemption's language is also too narrow because it
applies only to the group health plan offered by religious
institution to its employees. Universities typically offer a
plan to students as well. The student plan is offered as a
service to students who are no longer covered by their parents'
health insurance plans.
Third, reasonable alternatives to the employer mandate
exist. Nothing about the administration's rule takes away
women's rights to obtain contraceptives or abortifacients. This
debate is not about whether women have the right to obtain
these drugs; rather, this debate is about whether those who
believe that contraceptives or abortion-inducing drugs that
violate their convictions must be paid for by them. There is a
vast difference between the right to make a purchase for
oneself and requiring someone else to pay for it.
Fourth, the President's announcement does not present a
workable solution. The assurance of the administration that it
would work with religious organizations that sponsor self-
funded plans in the coming days to reach a compromise is too
little assurance on too great a matter. The President's
announcement does nothing to alleviate the concerns of
institutions sponsoring self-funded plans. In addition, the
employer must still communicate with the insurance company
regarding who is covered, applicable dates of coverage, and
similar matters. In other words, the employer's involvement in
arranging coverage of objectionable drugs is inescapable.
Forcing employers to cooperate in offering drugs or
services that they believe are morally wrong leaves these
employers in the same moral quagmire as the original
regulations. We ask that the administration and the Congress
overturn these regulations because they infringe on our
religious liberty.
Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garrett follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.079

Chairman Issa. Dr. Champion.

STATEMENT OF LAURA CHAMPION

Dr. Champion. Good afternoon, Chairman Issa and the other
members of this committee. Thank you for the mic. I appreciate
your invitation to share my concerns about the contraceptive
mandate.
My name is Dr. Laura Champion, and I am the medical
director and a practicing physician for health services at
Calvin College, a private 4-year Christian college in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. I graduated from the University of Washington
School of Medicine in 1996, and I'm board certified in family
medicine.
Today I want to share my concerns with you as a person who
has the responsibility to negotiate providing student insurance
coverage and caring for students clinically. We are an
institution whose religious character and mission is central to
everything we are and everything we do. In order to understand
our religious objection, you need to understand that we take
seriously our faith commitments, including our holistic student
health services.
Since 1876, the Christian liberal arts college--this
Christian liberal arts college in Michigan has built a sterling
reputation for academic excellence, consistently ranked in the
U.S. News and World Report as a top liberal arts college. It is
one of only four colleges in the Nation to receive a Senator
Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization.
Calvin is fortunate to have a fully staffed health services
department to serve the medical needs of our student body. We
require that each student have health insurance to attend our
school. We offer an affordable option for those students who
enroll underinsured.
Great care is taken in crafting a student health plan to
ensure that it reflects the values and beliefs of Calvin
College and the Christian Reform Church. This student health
plan covers all preventative care at 100 percent, according to
the medical definition of ``preventative care.'' We do not
cover Ella or Plan B.
In health services, our health services clinicians write
prescriptions that include female hormone contraception for
varying reasons, including the prevention of pregnancy.
However, abortion-causing drugs are not prescribed, nor are
they covered in our health plan. These agents are profoundly
inconsistent with the belief system of our college and our
religion. Requiring coverage of abortion-causing drugs is a
direct violation to the spiritual and behavioral standards that
Calvin College expects of ourselves and our students. It forces
Calvin College to add these drugs to the formulary for our
students, and it would violate our religious liberty.
To teach one set of values and beliefs and then provide
abortion-causing agents for students would lack integrity. We
challenge our students to live out the values they believe. Our
intent and purpose is that our entire faculty, staff, and
students are living examples of believers trying to follow in
the footsteps of Jesus Christ. We must ensure that our
practices follow our belief.
Now, even when Americans hold vastly different views in the
sanctity of life, this mandate raises a point that should be
examined by all: Does this country value religious freedom or
not? Further, the mandate elevates contraception and abortive
drugs to the level of preventative health care. They are not.
Plan B, and Ella, should not be considered equivalent to cancer
screening or vaccinations. Pregnancy is not a disease. This is
a premise that I reject both religiously and medically.
The recent White House accommodation purports that the
President has the legal authority to recognize or deny
religious liberty. As Christians, however, we believe that
these rights come from God. And as U.S. citizens, we believe
our Constitution affirms and guarantees religious liberties.
There is a limit to what the government can do to compel us or
not to do. In the particular matters of faith and conscience,
it is in the best interest of all Americans of every
ideological stripe that this limit, this line not be crossed.
This is not about politics. This is not about
contraception. This is not about depriving women of health
care. Rather, this is personal. This is about my daily life as
a physician, a Christian, and as the medical director. Will I
be able to practice medicine within my belief? Will Calvin
College be able to continue its historic tradition of living
out faith as it teaches? The government that is of the people,
by the people, and for the people should not force people to
violate their conscience.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Champion follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.083

Chairman Issa. I will recognize myself. And although--Mr.
Garvey, you are a Ph.D.; is that right?
Mr. Garvey. I wish I were, no. But I'm just--I'm a lawyer.
So I have a J.D., but not a Ph.D. I didn't write a
dissertation.
Chairman Issa. Oh, my goodness, and we were telling people
to treat you well here.
Let me go through this very quickly, and I know you have
heard I mean no disrespect on the first panel, so I will
preface with that same thing. Jesus didn't practice here in the
United States. He practiced in the Holy Lands. And Mother
Teresa, although she visited, she didn't practice here in the
United States. But as I understand correctly as to each of your
institutions, if Jesus came with his disciples to the United
States and paid any stipend whatsoever to his otherwise
volunteers, he--because he administered to people who were, I
guess, not Jewish, and there was no Christianity per se, and he
didn't require that they embrace his view of everything in
order to be healed or to be in any way administered to, he
wouldn't qualify; he wouldn't qualify for this exemption, would
he? Or, more importantly, Mother Teresa. She dealt with lepers.
She wouldn't be qualified under this rule for an exemption
because it certainly wasn't a church activity, even though it
was compassion at its highest level.
So let me reverse the question now that I have made the--
gone into ground perhaps beyond my training. If I understand
correctly, each of the institutions you attend, if you fire
everyone who is not of your faith and dismiss every student not
of your faith, you would qualify for the exemption, wouldn't
you? If you cloister yourselves only in one faith, closing off
the opportunity to provide for all, you would qualify, wouldn't
you?
Mr. Garvey. No. I'm really sorry to say, but the exemption
is even narrower than that.
Chairman Issa. Oh, so basically--and so basically even if
it is only your faith, if you are only teaching your faith,
even if you are only working with people of your faith, and
even if you only have in attendance people of your faith, this
exemption is narrower than that?
Mr. Garvey. That's right. It is narrower than that.
There are two additional provisions. One is that our
purpose has to be catechizing or inculcating precepts of our
faith, and we do things besides that at our universities. The
final and more important one is that we have to be one of those
institutions, few in number, that are exempt under tax law from
filing a Form 990, and that only applies to churches and
synagogues, mosques, and religious orders.
Chairman Issa. So I just want to understand, and the
ranking member, I hope, wants to understand, so it's only the
narrow definition of a church, or a mosque, or a temple defined
specifically as a place of worship that's exempt; otherwise,
it's not exempt----
Mr. Garvey. Religious orders, priests and nuns.
Chairman Issa. The convent would qualify.
Mr. Garvey. And their integrated auxiliaries. It's a--it's
fairly narrow. You have--you have the right idea.
Chairman Issa. So I was raised in two separate faiths. My
parents agreed that we would suffer twice, and it served me
well, but my father was an orthodox Christian, and my mother a
Mormon. So, you know, on Saturdays, we would go to the
teachings of the faith for Mormons. That wouldn't qualify,
because that wasn't actually a church service, but they were
teaching us.
At what point do we cross out of it? I just want to
understand, have they limited the definition of religion to be
only inside the sanctuary of the church itself? Is that
essentially what we have?
Mr. Garvey. Maybe the larger and more important point, as
Bishop Lori was saying in this morning's first panel, one of
the unfortunate things about the narrow definition of religion
is that it seems to confine religion to something that happens
in church when you are on your knees, and to ignore what all of
our Christian and other religious institutions think are
important.
But let me just stick with Christian institutions. The
living out of the beatitudes to feed the hungry, to give drinks
to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, those
are things that are not considered religious activities, but
they are the reason that most of our health care and social
service organizations exist. And then to teach and spread the
gospel to all nations is what our universities do.
Chairman Issa. Well, now you came here as experts,
physician and experts in the field, and that's why we invited
you here. But let me ask just one sort of conjecture, or ask
you to stretch a little bit.
Ministers, priests, rabbis, clerics serve in our U.S.
military for purposes of religious outreach. If I understand
correctly, we are sort of saying, well, because it is not--
their activity would not be limited to just inside a church,
but rather they counsel, they advise, they bring people solace,
in fact, they go to the hospital and visit people as they are
dealing with the wounds of war, this definition is designed to
be sort of ``that doesn't count.'' That's not religion in this
definition.
Not related specifically to the medical procedures that our
minority has talked about so endlessly, isn't this definition
one that would begin to erode the very fundamental question of
what is religious activity in America, and what is religious
freedom?
Ms. Garrett. There's no question of that. The Federal
Government obviously has a great deal of experience in writing
exemptions for religious activity. Unfortunately, this is the
very narrowest definition that we have seen. And all of our
organizations wrote to Health and Human Services when these
regulations were proposed, letting them know either
individually or through organizations with which we were
affiliated about our grave concerns over this exceedingly
narrow definition.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings, I might hope that you could get some women
onto your panel here to ask questions now that we have women
they were asking for on the first panel.
Mr. Cummings. Dr. Garrett, let me ask you, what did that--
you said you all wrote--what did you say? In other words, you
wanted women--you heard Ms. DeLauro talk about her health
issue, 25-year survivor of cancer. What did you all say with
regard to trying to strike a balance that satisfies you?
Ms. Garrett. We, through an organization, Council for
Christian Colleges and Universities, with which Oklahoma
Christian is affiliated, wrote both to Health and Human
Services and then to the White House regarding our concerns
about the exceedingly narrow definition, and also about the
fact that these proposed regulations cover not only
contraceptives, but also abortion-inducing drugs, and, of
course, we wrote about our grave concerns over that.
Mr. Cummings. And if someone wanted to have a--needed
contraceptives, how do you--how do you deal with that then, I
mean, if they wanted insurance with contraceptives in it; in
other words, that the contraceptives were covered?
Ms. Garrett. Well, at our institution we offer
contraceptive coverage.
Mr. Cummings. And so--so you had no problem with that?
Ms. Garrett. Not with contraceptives. Our issue with
respect to what is covered is with the abortion-inducing drugs
like Plan B and Ella.
Mr. Cummings. Doctor, you look like you wanted to say
something. Did you? You were squirming a little bit.
Mr. Thierfelder. Well, I----
Mr. Cummings. I'm trying to understand exactly what the
concern here is with the administration's policy. I understand
that you do not want to pay for a service that you have moral
objections to but you are not being asked to pay for.
Studies show time and time again that expanding access to
contraception is either cost neutral or saves money. According
to National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit organization
representing large employers on health policy issues, the cost
of adding contraceptive coverage to a health plan is more than
made up for in the expected cost savings. Likewise, when the
Federal Government added prescription contraceptives to the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, it found that this
caused no increase in the government's premium costs. Actuaries
that have studied this issue have concluded that providing
contraception is cost neutral.
Additionally, the administration's accommodation allows
employees to go directly to the outside insurance company and
avoid any interaction with the religious school or hospital
itself. Under the accommodation, none of the institutions you
represent would be required to provide coverage precisely
because of the administration's respect for your religious
beliefs. Why is the accommodation not acceptable?
Mr. Thierfelder. Because I don't see it as being any
different than the original mandate. In other words, we still
have a contract with the health care plan, health insurer. The
plan we have right now is that we can carve those out and say
we don't provide those services; however, with this new plan,
we would be forced to have an insurance provider that we would
have to provide those services to our employees. You are saying
we don't have to pay for it, but somebody is going to pay for
it, and being that it is our insurance plan and our provider,
we would be forced to pay them our premiums. They are going to
then, supposedly for free, provide these services to our
employees, and--but I don't see the difference between the two.
In both cases our insurance provider would be covering it
whether the mandate was the original one or we have this new
exemption. RPTS COCHRAN DCMN HERZFELD [1:35 p.m.]
Mr. Cummings. And if you did not see it in the premium, you
still would feel you are paying for it; is that it?
Mr. Thierfelder. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Dr. Oliver.
Mr. Oliver. I would say additionally, Mr. Cummings, that
many of us, like my institution, have self-funded plans so we
are the direct provider. In that case there is no insurance
company that can absorb that cost. It is directly paid by us.
And as I mentioned in my testimony, we provide preventative
health services for women, including contraceptives. We are
opposed to abortifacients, including Plan B and Ella, which are
required by this mandate.
And I would further say in regard to the accommodation,
with all due respect to the administration, they said that
there was an accommodation, but the rule is exactly as it was
published on August 1, 2011. Nothing is changed. There is just
a promise that something will change in the future.
Ms. Garrett. I would like to add one other wrinkle to this,
and that is for all these employers, they will be required to
be involved in some manner, because they must provide a list of
who is covered as well as the applicable dates of coverage to
the insurance company. So the involvement of the employers in
assuring that women have access to the contraceptive and
abortifacient coverage is inescapable.
Mr. Cummings. Dr. Champion.
Dr. Champion. I understand that when you are asking if we
are no longer required to pay for it, if it takes it out of our
clear conscience. And because I am specifically charged with
the duty of designing and signing my name to the student health
care plan at Calvin College, when you force me--when a mandate
forces me to add in Ella and Plan B as part of our package,
especially as a preventative package which would be 100 percent
coverage, so we are responsible for managing that cost, those--
that my signature is completely in discord with my belief
system. So even if the insurance company can promise that they
are not going to increase our premium by adding this expensive
medication to the plan, you are still asking me to breach my
religious liberty.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. McHenry [presiding]. I thank the ranking member, and I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Thierfelder, thank you for being here today. I
certainly appreciate your leadership of my favorite
institution, my alma mater, Belmont Abbey, and I appreciate
your leadership in these tough times for the institution and
what you have taken the institution through, as well as the
monks and Abbot Placid as well. So just a few basic questions
just so we have this on the record.
You are affiliated with a Benedictine institution.
Mr. Thierfelder. A Benedictine monastery, Belmont Abbey,
yes.
Mr. McHenry. And as such, who is the decisionmaker about
the tenets of the faith?
Mr. Thierfelder. Well, the Abbot Placid as chancellor
ensures that we are solid in terms of our mission. If you look
at our articles of incorporation, the actual members of Belmont
Abbey College, Inc., are the professed monks of Belmont Abbey.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. So truly when you describe the campus
with the monastery at the heart of it, that is the incorporated
nature of it as well?
Mr. Thierfelder. Absolutely. It is central to who we are.
In other words, the college is their apostolate. They came
here. They are living out their vocation through this
apostolate called Belmont Abbey College.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. And since your founding, you have
educated and helped and assisted non-Catholics?
Mr. Thierfelder. I haven't been here the whole time, but,
yes, that is what the monks have always done extraordinarily
well. They have always reached out. We are in Gaston County,
and for those who don't know Gaston County, North Carolina,
there is a high rate of unemployment, there is a great deal of
illiteracy and so forth. We provide, I think, an invaluable
service to our community. And our adult degree program is 70
percent women. And if you looked at our total enrollment of the
College of Belmont Abbey College, you may think because we are
a Catholic College, we must be all Catholics there. Maybe about
40 percent of all of our students are Catholic if you include
the adult degree program.
Mr. McHenry. But you are a Catholic institution?
Mr. Thierfelder. Absolutely. And that is the whole point,
and that is why this is so devastating to us because our
mission to reach out. And as I said in my remarks, we welcome
everybody as Christ. It is like, come on in, we love you. And
so for us then to have to turn around and say somehow we can't
welcome you in or you can't be a part of our community is just
averse to who we are.
Mr. McHenry. So, in essence, you are there as a result of
the monks and the mission of the monks.
Mr. Thierfelder. This was a call. I was not in higher
education. I was in the private sector. I was in business. I
was in sports medicine, sports law, and sports medicine and so
forth. I came here, and so did my wife and my family, because
we really believe we were called to be at this college, and
that is why we are here is because of that commitment. And I
came because there was a Benedictine monastery that had a
college.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. So basically what happens if this rule
is put through? You are faced with a choice of either paying a
$2,000 fine per employee----
Mr. Thierfelder. Well, roughly right now for us the cost of
this would maybe be about $300,000 a year that we would have to
pay.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. And so you would either have to pay the
fine or act counter to your faith.
Mr. Thierfelder. Which we can't do. I mean, we just will
not violate our religious beliefs. So we will have to find a
way, depending on what happens, to get through this. But one of
them will not be in any way sacrificing our moral convictions.
Mr. McHenry. So pay the $300,000 fine or simply close down
the college?
Mr. Thierfelder. Well, you hope it would never come to that
extreme. My hope is that there would be intermediate steps. The
unfortunate part would be if it came down to somehow limiting
health insurance coverage or not being able to provide it in
the same kind of way, I mean, that would be a terrible,
terrible thing to do. I hope we would never come to that.
I am confident that we won't come to that, because I think
hearings like this are made to maybe make these things better
known and have a discussion. And obviously there may not be a
lot of discussion in here today, but I am sure people will be
following this, as I followed it, and my hope is that people
will see the truth in this and realize that we need to do
something about this.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. So just for the record, how political
are the monks on campus, and how political has Belmont Abbey
been in its 130-year tradition?
Mr. Thierfelder. Not political at all. I mean, if you know
Benedictine monks, they are very quiet, humble men that live
and pray together; that that is not what their--their interests
and their life is not about politics.
Mr. McHenry. So you have just been called to action based
on the actions of this administration and with the EEOC and now
with the HHS mandate?
Mr. Thierfelder. This is really--as I said, I respect what
the ranking member, Congressman Cummings, had said. This
shouldn't be adversarial. We are not trying to get anybody. We
are not trying to enforce our beliefs on anybody. However, our
beliefs are really important to us, and so all we are asking is
that we are not coerced into violating our religious liberty.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Dr. Thierfelder.
Dr. Champion, you're the only medical doctor on this panel.
So the President said if you like the health care plan you
have, you can keep it. What do you say to that?
Dr. Champion. Are you referring to the video we saw in the
earlier panel?
Mr. McHenry. Yes.
Dr. Champion. Right. If I was sitting in that audience, I
would have been applauding the President for his vision. But
when we mandate our Christian colleges and institutions to
include abortive-causing drugs into their plan, and they have
to answer to a higher calling and choose to no longer carry
that student health plan, then inevitably we are limiting
health care to students by closing down those very campuswide
health services that were previously providing excellent care
to their students, and now the student no longer can pick her
favorite doctor, which goes against both promises he made on
that video.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
My time has expired. Mr. Amash is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for testifying
today, but I would especially like to welcome Dr. Champion, who
is here from Grand Rapids, Michigan, in my district, and from
Calvin College, which is my wife's alma mater.
Dr. Champion. You married well.
Mr. Amash. Most of my friends went to Calvin College as
well.
Dr. Champion, can you give us an example about how you make
decisions about the student health care plans at Calvin College
and how the mandate will affect your current plan?
Dr. Champion. Yes. So when I came to Calvin College this
summer, I analyzed the student plan that was there. I learned
that we charge $15 for every visit. We have phenomenal state-
of-the-art physicians doing evidence-based care, yet Calvin
chooses to subsidize their care by limiting the cost, even
though we have a student plan that we do bill at 100 percent
when they come in for preventative care. This is because we
really emphasize the value of being able to instill and educate
and train.
When I analyzed the current plan, it showed that if she
needed to come in, for instance, for a sexually transmitted
disease evaluation, we had to charge her $10 for a gyn exam, $5
for a wet mount, and pretty soon the conversation for an
underinsured student who didn't choose our plan would end up
needing to be taken about the money relationship to the cost of
care. So I redirected that fee in the next design plan to
incorporate all of that in and redirect the visit toward the
clinician's experience-guided evidence and not a discussion
about cost. So by changing the plan in those very specific
ways, I am able to be a good steward of the limited plan we can
offer them.
When I learned that we have to add abortative agents and
expand the coverage to include surgical sterilization, I am
aware that it substantially raises the premium because it does
raise the risk, even if a 20- or 21-year-old student never
requests a tubal ligation or vasectomy, because we have to add
it into our plan.
So there are financial reasons for me to be a good steward
of the plan, but more importantly there are severe
contradictions to my personal religious beliefs by adding Ella
and Plan B into the plan.
Mr. Amash. And you are the only medical doctor on the
panel, so could you elaborate on why you are opposed to having
birth control and abortifacients listed as preventative
services?
Dr. Champion. Right. Well, thank you for asking that,
because this is really important to me.
Preventative care defined by physicians has to do with
anticipating future care by analyzing their past history. So
you are asked your social history, your medical history, what
age you are. We use your age to determine what your risk is. So
a 50-year-old's risk for heart disease or colon cancer will
help us help them determine which preventative care screening
they need.
When it comes to pregnancy, since it is not a disease, we
are now treating a concern for the patient, which we actually
move into a visit called diagnostic care. So the diagnosis is
contraception counseling. We often will do it at our physical
as a courtesy to her because she is so healthy, we don't want
to make her come back. But it is actually not a preventative
care service.
Outside of that, Plan B and Ella are not preventative at
all, because they are actually a result of behavior where she
is purposely taking the medication to limit her risk for
sustaining a pregnancy that may have started a day or 5 before
taking the pill.
Furthermore, when you talk about preventative care in a
young woman, the U.S. Federal Government did give us new
recommendations in December 2010. They did it under the CDC,
and they asked physicians to step outside of whatever their
Christian or other values are and to start speaking to patients
about preventative care when it comes to STDs. And they have
required or strongly recommended physicians to now ask patients
to limit the number of lifetime partners and delay the onset of
intimacy.
Those guidelines from the Federal Government are well
within preventative care measures, and I am happy to abide by
them because they do follow my principles, but they are also
scientifically based and show that you can minimize STDs by
giving this recommendation preventatively.
Mr. Amash. Does the President's so-called compromise make
the mandate any less restrictive on your ability to freely
exercise religious and conscientious beliefs?
Dr. Champion. When the President spoke on Friday, I had a
glimmer of hope that there was going to be an accommodation
that perhaps broadened his definition. But he really doesn't
have the right to decide the definition of when it is against
my conscience. But what turned out to be in the written
statement was no different than what he had presented us on
August 1st of last year.
Mr. Amash. Thanks so much.
Mr. Lankford [presiding]. Thank you.
With that, I yield to Mr. Murphy 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the chairman of the full
committee is not here right now to answer this question, but I
appreciate the witnesses' patience today. It has been a long
day for both the committee, the staff and the witnesses. But we
have been going round and round on this question of what the
scope of this hearing is today and whether or not it is
appropriate to have women who have been affected by their
inability to get birth control, have been affected by their
inability to get a full range of reproductive rights to have
their voices here today. And I think the minority, Democrats on
this committee, have tried every means possible to try to get
that voice represented here today, and obviously we were
astonished to find not a single female on the first panel.
So, Mr. Chairman, I know you are not ultimately making the
decisions, that you are sitting in right now for Mr. Issa, but
there might be another way around this. We are having a hearing
today that effectively limits the ability of women to present
their case on why they deserve to have access to the full range
of reproductive health care if we can't have somebody like
Sandra Fluke testify today about her medical condition and why
access to contraception is so critical to her health, if we are
now approaching the last minutes of this hearing without the
ability to hear the other side of this debate.
There are two sides. I admit that there is a very important
question about religious freedom, but is also a very important
question about women's health care, and we have been told
repeatedly today by Chairman Issa and others that this is not
the time, this is not the day to debate that second question of
the appropriateness of the rule granting women access to the
contraception no matter where they work.
Maybe there is one last way out of this, which is to
schedule a second hearing, to have a second hearing that would
allow us to focus on the question of whether or not we are
jeopardizing women's health care by not having a strong rule in
place to give them access to preventative health care services
and reproductive health care services regardless of where they
work.
So I will pose the question to you, Mr. Chairman. Do you
think that the majority would entertain the notion of convening
a second hearing? I understand we probably might not even get a
witness at that hearing. Maybe we would get one, maybe we would
get two witnesses. But do you think that the majority would
entertain the idea of convening a second hearing to focus on
this question of the appropriate level of coverage----
Mr. McHenry. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Murphy. Certainly I would yield.
Mr. McHenry. I would be happy to engage in this. But the
title of today's hearing is ``Lines Crossed: Separation of
Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?''
That was the question posed today about this hearing, not a
question about your access or anyone's access to
contraceptions. That is a completely different subject. When
the chairman--I am sure the chairman would be happy to have the
conversation with you about future hearings and getting your
input on that.
But I don't think there is any movement afoot in Congress
to ban contraception. That is not what this is about. It is
about forcing religious institutions with deeply held moral
convictions to do something that is counter to their faith.
And with that, since I have taken so much time, I would ask
unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds for the gentleman.
Mr. Lankford. Without objection.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. McHenry.
I think once you have waded into this debate and
selectively chosen to only talk about one side of it, which is
the ability of a religion to decide whether or not they provide
a basic range of health care benefits to their employees at a
Catholic hospital or at a religious school, I think you have to
talk about the second piece of the debate.
I don't think you can choose as a committee, I don't think
we should choose, to only discuss one side of the debate. We
thought that that conversation should have happened today. We
thought that at least one witness should have told the
perspective of a woman struggling to get access to reproductive
health care.
But having failed in that effort, I think that we should
have a second hearing. I know that we will have the deck
stacked against us again, and I appreciate the gentleman for
offering the fact that a discussion could certainly take place
in the future. I think it would be incredibly important to this
debate and to this committee to hear from women, to hear from
women that are struggling with this problem on a daily basis.
And if that can't happen today, then, Mr. Chairman, I would
submit it should happen at a hearing in the future, hopefully
within the next several weeks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. There
are two individuals that are female on the panel here now, and
I just want to make sure the record reflects such.
Mr. Murphy. I think, Mr. McHenry, that is duly noted. But
we have had nine witnesses. Two of the nine have been female. I
don't think that accurately represents the debate that is
happening in the public when you are talking about an issue
relevant to women's health care. To have two of nine witnesses
be females, I think, is offensive to the dialog that is
happening in the public, and I think that we can remedy that if
we come back and do this a second time on the issue specific to
the health care concerns of the millions of women, the 99
percent of women, in this country who have used or do use
contraception.
Mr. Lankford. With that, the gentleman's time has expired.
I would be remiss if I didn't recognize, as I recognize
myself for the next 5 minutes of questioning time, to be able
to comment on that as well, Mr. Murphy.
The topic today is on religious freedom. The issue that
came up with this that the President stepped into the middle of
was an issue of religious faith. This is not an issue of
limiting, though I am quite aware that the media and that my
friends on the Democrat side of the aisle are trying to make
this into an issue to make conservatives look like they are
barbarians at the gate trying to take away women's reproductive
health. That is not the issue. That has been widely accepted.
There are contraceptives available for free all over the
country in many locations. Contraceptives are covered in most
of the health plans in America.
The confusing thing to the administration and to some
individuals, and not saying Mr. Murphy is this way, is that
people that have deep religious faith, their faith extends
beyond the walls of the church. And to define you can have your
religion as long as it is within the church building completely
violates the principle of James 1:27, that true religion is
this; that we watch out for the orphans and widows in their
distress, and that we keep ourselves from being polluted by the
world. That is a basic tenet of Christian faith.
Mr. Murphy. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lankford. Let me finish, and I will try to yield you
some time.
To be able to say you can practice your faith in this
building here, but if you extend out to taking care of the
orphans and the widows in their distress, we are going to reach
in as a government and define for you how you practice your
religion. As I mentioned earlier in my earlier comments, the
essence of this is can this administration or any future
administration step into a church or church-based institution
and say, I know your doctrine; I have a different doctrine; you
will give in to my doctrine, or I will fine you? That is what
occurred.
Now, I understand the topic deals with something very
controversial, but the essence of this conversation is can the
Federal Government step into a religious institution and
redefine their doctrine for them. The real issue is who defines
the doctrine and religious teachings and religious practice of
the church.
I ask for unanimous consent for 30 seconds to give you an
opportunity, and then I will finish up my questions.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just to your first point, which is that contraception is
widely available, and thus we don't need to have that
perspective here and we don't need to have a second hearing,
well, I don't think a bunch of guys, a bunch of men, on this
committee should be making the decision as to whether
contraception is available. And frankly, if you had allowed for
Sandra Fluke to testify here today, she would have told you it
was not available to her, that it came at considerable
financial burden to purchase it on her own.
So, again, I think we are getting to the root of this
problem is that to have a woman's perspective, to have a health
care consumer's perspective would be a lot more useful than for
a bunch of males----
Mr. Lankford. With that, I reclaim reclaim my time. And let
me just mention this one thing to you as well on that. It has
been interesting to hear the conversation about there should
have been more women on the panel, and the folks that mostly
said that are now gone when women are on the panel. There was a
conversation there should have been some physicians on the
panel. Now that there is a physician on the panel, most of the
folks that raised that issue are now gone and not participating
in the conversation. So I understand that.
The issue gets to the core still: Can the Federal
Government reach into a church or religious institution and
define for them their doctrine? There is nothing in currently
how this is being practiced from not continuing to press
forward. Let me give you a good example of that.
``The Secretary shall make these decisions'' opens it up
that within a year or two to say, currently we are forcing all
these different providers to provide abortifacients,
contraceptions and sterilizations for free. Under the guise of
full range of reproductive rights, there is nothing to stop the
Secretary from stepping in 2 years from now and saying, now all
institutions will cover abortions, the procedure, for free.
There is nothing in this that restrains that, because it is
not the Federal Government paying for it. So you'd say, well,
the Hyde Amendment would prevent it. No, this is stepping in
and saying those insurance companies will provide it for free.
So we will step in between the contract between a religious
institution and the insurance company that they have contracted
with and say, we will redefine the contract for you, because I
know you are religious, and you don't know enough to know this
is right, but we are going to tell you this is the right thing
to do, and here is your new faith. Your new faith is you cover
these things because it is the right thing to do. Your new
faith will be that you will cover abortions in some future day
because that is the right thing to do to give the full range of
reproductive health.
You could say that is some strange conspiracy, but quite
frankly, we just watched the Catholic bishops lose a contract
for taking care of human trafficking after they had
tremendously high scores for one reason: They would not
encourage abortions. Nothing covered abortions for them. They
would not say to the people they were taking care of, there is
a place to go get an abortion. And because they won't do that,
they lost the contract.
This is a religious issue, and it is one of these things
that I understand when you are with your own party, you look at
that administration and want to help protect him and deflect
the issues. Long term this has serious consequences regardless
of who is the President at some future day; what is the role of
the church in that.
With that I would be very honored to thank you for coming
and sharing of your own time and your own backgrounds and
submitting your statements and doing that. My time has expired.
Mr. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I also
want to thank the witnesses for being here and being a part of
this discussion.
Since Ms. Fluke was not given the opportunity to testify, I
am going to read what her testimony would have been. She is a
third-year student at Georgetown Law School that we requested.
Here is what she would have said had she been here.
``A year ago, my friend from law school had to have her
ovary surgically removed as a result of Georgetown's refusal to
cover contraceptives. My friend choose Georgetown Law because
of its commitment to public service, its location and a
generous scholarship the school had awarded her. She wasn't
aware that Georgetown's student health insurance doesn't cover
birth control, but she is gay, so it wasn't a big concern.
``During law school, my friend was diagnosed with a
syndrome that causes painful cysts to grow on one's ovaries.
The treatment for the syndrome is birth control, which can
successfully hinder the growth of cysts. When she was first
diagnosed, it seem routine. The doctor wrote a prescription for
birth control. Knowing of Georgetown's policy not to cover
birth control for anything but medical conditions, the doctor
wrote `for non contraceptive purposes' on the prescription, and
off my friend went to the pharmacy. But she was turned down
because Georgetown's insurance carrier assumed my friend wanted
the medication to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
``She worked with her doctor's office to navigate the
university's process to get coverage, but no matter what she
did, she was denied coverage of her much-needed medication. My
friend's prescription for birth control cost over $100 a month
at her local pharmacy. She paid out of pocket for several
months, but she was soon unable to afford the high cost of the
medication. She had to stop taking it.
``In my friend's final year at Georgetown, she began having
sharp pains in her abdomen. It was so painful, she woke up
thinking she had been shot. When all the tests were completed,
she learned that she had a plum-sized complex cyst growing on
her ovary. The doctors had to remove her entire ovary because
the cyst was just too complex. It had grown from the size of a
plum to roughly that of a tennis ball. Had she been able to
take birth control, the cyst would likely not have grown so
rapidly or become so complex. Birth control could have made all
the difference from preventing the loss of my friend's ovary.
``A year passed, but the complications from the removal of
my friend's ovary are far from over. While we are here this
morning, she is at a doctor's appointment set to determine if
the removal of her ovary has forced her body into early
menopause. She is having weight gain, night sweats, hot flashes
and other symptoms of menopause. And my friend is only 32. If
she is in early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world
will be able to help her have children of her own.''
This is a heart-wrenching story, and I am sorry we could
not hear directly what this witness would have said. I think
this is part of the complexity of the issue, and I would like
to ask unanimous consent that the statement be entered into the
record.
Chairman Issa [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. And I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I want to thank all our witnesses today. You
have been very generous. All of you were here for the first
panel and the second panel, and I appreciate your contribution
to our better understanding of religious freedom, first from
the clergy standpoint and now from the people so close to the
administering of other services on behalf of religious
organizations.
Thank you. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.086