Denver Catholic

B7 DENVER CATHOLIC | APRIL 9-22, 2016 WASHINGTON D.C. ˆCNA/EWTN NEWS‹ » The Supreme Court asked for parties in the Little Sisters' case to submit alternative means, if possible, of ensuring contraceptive coverage while maintaining religious freedom. "This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion," Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters. At the heart of the case Zubik v. Bur- well is the administration's mandate that employers provide cost-free coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and drugs that can cause abortions, and the so-called "accommodation" offered to objecting non-profi t employers. This accommodation involves the employer sending the government a form stating its objection to providing the cover- age. The government notifi es their insurer (or third-party administrator for self-in- sured parties) of their objection and the insurer provides the coverage separately. The plainti€ s like the Little Sisters – as well as many other non-profi ts – argue that this still forces them, under threat of heavy fi nes, to cooperate with practices they believe are immoral. They say they are still facilitating access to these drugs in their health plans by sending the form to the federal govern- ment because they know the coverage will ultimately be provided. Furthermore, they argue the government is unlawfully "hijacking " their health plan which is between them and their insurer. Meanwhile, the administration argues that contraception coverage in employer health plans is in the common interest and that any other method of the government separately providing this coverage on the public exchanges or through Medicaid or Medicare would be insu« cient to achieve the universal coverage that Congress envi- sioned in its health care law. An alternative method – if it exists – of ensuring the contraceptive coverage while not implicating objecting parties in facil- itating access to this coverage should be found, the Court stated. "For example," the order stated, "the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to pro- vide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insur- ance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds." "Petitioners would have no legal obli- gation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Fed- eral Government, or to their employees." The insurer, aware that the employer has a religious objection to the coverage, would then take care of setting up "cost-free contraceptive coverage" for the employee independent of cost to the employer and independent of the employer's health plan. The order comes after oral arguments in the case took place at the Supreme Court March 23. The question of an alternative method being possible was raised during the arguments by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked if any "acceptable" method of "notification" existed for objecting employers while ensuring that women still receive "contraceptive coverage." "Your Honor, possibly so, possibly not," Noel Francisco, who was arguing for the petitioners, replied, adding that "we've not been o€ ered that kind of alternative to consider." The "more distance" there is between the objecting employer and the contraceptive coverage, he added, the "less problematic" it would probably be for the plainti€ s. Justice Kagan followed up, asking what scenarios might exist with an "acceptable" distance. "Enough distance is we fi le the notice of objection, and the government furthers its interest in the same way it furthers its interest with respect to all of the other employees who don't get coverage from an employer-based plan," Francisco replied, referring to the large corporations like Visa and PepsiCo that are exempt from the contraceptive mandate because their pre-existing health plans have been "grandfathered" in to the law's regulations. Another scenario Francisco fl oated would be if the government paid for an "uber-in- surance policy" where one carrier provided all the mandated contraceptive coverage and the plainti€ s used that carrier without having to notify them of their objection. The coverage would be provided separately. He concluded that "it's quite clear that the government has alternatives because it's the same alternatives that it uses for everybody else. And if all of those alterna- tives are fi ne with them, they at least need evidence explaining why they're not fi ne for us as well." SERVING THE DENVER CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SINCE 1890. The heritage behind our mortuaries and cemeteries is one of history and tradition. For more than a century, Catholic families have trusted Olinger Mortuaries and Cemeteries to care for their loved ones because respect for traditions, understanding the needs of the Catholic faith, and providing affordable options is at the heart of what we do. With more than a 90 years of combined experience, parishioners Harry Stevenson, Matt Whaley and Lloyd Swint have assisted families with care and compassion. Today, their experience, combined with those who provide professional services in 11 Olinger neighborhood chapels, is virtually unprecedented in serving the Denver Catholic community. Harry Stevenson 52 Years Matt Whaley 27 Years Lloyd Swint 11 Years (303) 455-3663 www.denverfuneralproviders.com Archdiocese of Denver Mortuary 12801 W. 44th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303) 425-9511 Mt. Olivet Cemetery 12801 W. 44th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 (303) 424-7785 St. Simeon Cemetery 22001 E. State Hwy. 30 Aurora, CO 80018 (720) 859-9785 • Professional, personalized service • Respectful • Compassionate The Archdiocese of Denver Cemeteries and Mortuary Caring for the faithful in Northern Colorado since 1893 in their most personal time of need. A hopeful sign? New developments in the Little Sisters' court case The Little Sisters of the Poor fear they may have to close their many homes for the elderly if a com- promise is not reach. FILE PHOTO Giving Foundation 303-867-0613 or www.theCatholicFoundation.com

• Cover