In a private speech to Minnesota’s priests last October, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said that any priest who disagreed with the church’s efforts to place a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples should remain silent. Any disagreements should be brought to him personally, he said. The Catholic Church in Minnesota has been a driving force for the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment since it passed onto the 2012 ballot last May.

Nienstedt later sent the text of that speech to priests who were unable to participate in the gathering. Someone in the church recently leaked the text to the Progressive Catholic Voice, a group working for reform within the church. On Thursday, PCV published statements condemning Nienstedt’s speech.

In the speech, Nienstedt told the priests he expects participation in getting the amendment passed from everyone within the church:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Nienstedt also noted that he’s created teams of “a priest and a married couple” to go into Catholic schools to talk about the amendment.

In a public statement, various members of Progressive Catholic Voice said the Archbishop’s direction is unbelievable.

“When I first read this letter I couldn’t believe that the Archbishop was telling priests and deacons to be silent if they were opposed to the marriage amendment,” said Paula Ruddy, parishioner at Minneapolis’ St. Boniface. “Is one’s position on whether the State constitution should be amended a matter of Church doctrine? How are Catholics to form their consciences if their pastors are not candid with them?”

Ruddy is also a member of the editorial board of the Progressive Catholic Voice.

That group’s editor, Michael Bayly, called the speech problematic.

“The Archbishop’s letter is problematic in many ways,” he said. “As a gay man, I find it particularly offensive that he can’t even bring himself to name gay and lesbian people. We’re simply a ‘minority’ seemingly out to destroy the church and civilization. Such an absurd caricature would be funny if not for the hurtful and damaging consequences to individuals, couples and families resulting from the Archbishop’s anti-marriage equality activism.”

Minnesota’s Catholic hierarchy has come under intense scrutiny over its support for the anti-gay constitutional amendment.

In the run-up to the 2010 gubernatorial election, the church sent out approximately 400,000 DVDs and mailings urging Catholics to vote for Republican Tom Emmer, the only candidate in the race who opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples and a staunch Catholic.

The campaign, paid for by an anonymous donor and produced by the Knight of Columbus, sparked protests against the church.

More recently, the Archdiocese’s lobbying wing, the Minnesota Catholic Conference, has joined with the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council to form the Minnesota for Marriage Coalition, a group dedicated to passing the amendment in November.

Photo: New Yorkers celebrate the law legalizing gay marriage (Photo: Flickr/Zach Roberts)

National for Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown speaks to a crowd during NOM’s 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour, July 27, 2010 (Photo: Flickr/Lost Albatross).

In 2010, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a tax-exempt nonprofit trying to thwart the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the U.S., reported the highest individual donations it has received since its inception in 2007, according to NOM’s most recent income disclosures to the Internal Revenue Service, recently obtained by The American Independent. Per NOM’s numbers, just two individuals contributed more than $6 million to the organization’s political arm – accounting for about two-thirds of NOM’s 2010 revenue, while single donations below $5,000 covered only 8 percent of reported revenue.

This revelation is not extraordinary for NOM, whose existence from the very beginning has been dependent upon large contributions from a small pool of big-money, mostly anonymous donors. But what’s different about this past funding cycle is how much narrower the margin is between $100 contributions and $1 million contributions. And based on NOM’s annual financial reporting to the IRS over the past four years, it appears as though that gap has narrowed over time.

In fiscal year 2009, NOM’s contributions above $5,000 made up about 78 percent of all the contributions received, according to its 2009 Form 990 (PDF). One year later, contributions above $5,000 made up roughly 92 percent of NOM’s contributions, which in turn represented the majority of NOM’s total revenue for that year. The very nature of NOM’s funding structure has made critics chide its self-description as a “grassroots organization.”

Since the very beginning, NOM has fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing the names of donors specifically and its financial records generally. The group is embroiled in various legal battles in different states (recently in Minnesota) to avoid disclosure of its political campaign records.

A closer look into the organization’s federally mandated financial disclosures (embedded below) reveal other discrepancies. TAI contacted NOM for comments and clarifications – as we have on many occasions in the past – but the organization declined to respond.

Vague reporting

On July 22, former NOM board chair Maggie Gallagher sent TAI an email in response to a question for a story about NOM’s fundraising. “Nom raised and spent $13 million last year,” Gallagher wrote, referring to 2010. She also told TAI that NOM’s projected revenues for 2011 is close to $20 million. “Our fundraising target evolve [sic] as our needs evolve, which is partly a result of our goals, and partly what we need to respond to pro-SSM [same-sex marriage] goals.”

But according to what NOM reported to the IRS for 2010, the organization claims it raised about $9.6 million and spent about $10.7 million.

TAI questioned Gallagher, via email, about the discrepancy between her quote and what is listed in NOM’s 990, but Gallagher declined to respond.

NOM reported spending large chunks of its budget on advertising and promotion ($3 million); employees’ wages, benefits, and taxes ($1.2 million); and on grants and assistance to other organizations ($600,000).

But the largest portion – $4 million, or 38 percent of NOM’s expenditures in fiscal year 2010 – was classified on its federal tax form as “other.”

NOM’s treasurer, Neil Corkery, described its general expenses on the form this way: “The Organization developed and distributed via radio, television, mail, email, telephone, and the world-wide web, a series of advertising and outreach promoting traditional marriage.”

What NOM reported spending on “legal” ($313,746) and “political expenditures” ($206,509) are surprisingly small, given that in 2010 the organization participated in several lawsuits and state-based political campaigns. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) shows that in 2010, NOM was involved in at least six different federal lawsuits. NOM has also set up political action committees in various states throughout the country. Last month TAI reported that NOM was one of the top political spenders in Iowa’s 2010 election cycle, making more than $721,000 in independent expenditures.

What NOM did report was contributing to the political campaigns of D.C. Council candidates Delano Hunter ($450) and Anthony Motley ($950); D.C. mayoral candidate Leo Alexander ($1,950); New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate John Stephen ($1,000); and a political action committee for Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli ($2,179). (Only Cuccinelli was successful.) Additionally, the organization reported spending the majority of its political expenditures — $200,000 — on its California-based political action committee.

NOM reported giving grants – ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 – to 11 organizations dedicated to preventing the legalization for same-sex marriage. Two of the donations were for organizations affiliated with NOM: Stand for Marriage DC, a PAC that shares NOM’s mailing address and was created to reverse the legalization of gay marriage in the nation’s capital, and a $200,000 grant to its California PAC (so either NOM gave two separate $200,000 payments to the PAC, or it recorded it twice).

Other grant beneficiaries: American Principles Project, Proposition 8 Legal Defense, Family Research Council Action, Stand for Marriage Maine, Education for All, Catholic Vote Action, Family Policy West Virginia, Indiana Family Action, and Minnesota Family Action.

About 96 percent of NOM’s total revenue came from donations. Of the remaining $368,513, $139 reportedly came from investment income; the rest was attributed to “other revenue.”

In 2010 the organization had a 17-member staff and no volunteers, and yet only four are listed as being paid: president Brian Brown ($212,500), then-board chair Gallagher ($152,500), treasurer Corkery ($25,000), and Jennifer Morse ($116,667). Morse is listed on the form as simply “employee,” but she is actually the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which is a project of NOM’s 501(c)3, the NOM Education Fund – though Morse’s name does not appear on the Form 990 for this fund. Additionally, the Ruth Institute is a separate entity with its own 501(c)3 status. In the Ruth Institute’s 2009 Form 990, Morse was listed as nonsalaried, but TAI has not seen Ruth’s disclosures for 2010.

Who funds NOM and its activities?

Under IRS rules regarding nonprofit entities with 501(c)3 and (c)4 status, all donations above $5,000 must be disclosed. Of the 22 contributions NOM’s (c)4 was obligated to list, all but five were greater than $5,000.

The top five contributions to the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.:

1. $3,416,000
2. $2,940,000
3. $750,000
4. $600,000
5. $400,000

NOM regularly sends out fundraising emails and mailers – usually addressed “Dear Marriage Supporter” – asking for donations of $5, $10, $100, maybe $1,000. Occasionally, NOM will offer to match donations, thanks to a generous million-dollar donor. The Donate! page on NOM’s website includes the following disclaimer:

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status [this is a typo for CNC status – “currently not collective"], are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

Back in July, Gallagher told TAI that NOM has 50,000 donors. But many of NOM’s critics believe the organization is funded by a few wealthy donors.

“The National Organization for Marriage is primarily a shell group that exists to funnel funding from secret anti-gay donors,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a national campaign started in 2003 whose mission is to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples nationwide. “[NOM] undermines and tries to overturn campaign finance and disclosure laws in states all over the country. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.”

In September 2010, The Washington Independent, TAI’s predecessor, reported that Catholic charity group the Knights of Columbus donated $1.4 million to NOM in 2009, an amount that did not appear of NOM’s Form 990.

Concerns about NOM’s secretive nature led to the launch of Nom Exposed, a project developed by the D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign and the California-based progressive alliance called the Courage Campaign.

Courage Campaign founder and President Rick Jacobs told TAI that the Courage Campaign and HRC trailed NOM on its summer 2010 “One Man, One Woman” bus tour across the eastern United States to protest same-sex marriage, and he said that many times the counter-protesters outnumbered NOM’s protesters.

“Most of the time they actually just had one man and one woman show up,” Jacobs said.

Perhaps the man who trusts NOM the least is Fred Karger – least known for his long-shot GOP presidential campaign as the first openly gay candidate, but best known for exposing the Mormon Church’s extensive financial involvement in California’s Proposition 8 campaign that overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008.

After obtaining classified Mormon documents from an anonymous source, Karger has maintained his belief that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel money for political campaigns against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ever since, Karger has been tailing NOM’s every move – ready to file a complaint each time it funds a political campaign and fails to register or disclose its donors.

This year Karger started hounding NOM for its 990s a month before they were due. He told TAI that in late October he sent one of his campaign staffers to NOM’s D.C. headquarters on K Street, who came back empty-handed. He then mailed an accusatory letter to recently named NOM chairman John Eastman, which soured the staffer’s ability to collect the forms on a subsequent visit to NOM’s office on Nov. 16.

(TAI first visited NOM’s D.C. office looking for its 2010 990s in early November and was told by executive assistant Paul Bothwell that the forms were due to the IRS on Nov. 15 and would be published on NOM’s website. On Dec. 2, TAI returned to NOM’s office, and Bothwell promptly printed out the records. The forms indicate that NOM will not be making the records available online.)

Karger, who launched an ethics investigation against NOM in California and in Maine and closely tracks the group’s legal cases, told TAI that based on NOM’s legal activities alone, he suspects the organization’s budget is higher than what they are reporting.

Though Karger still believes that the Mormon Church is in league with NOM, Jacobs said he thinks it’s unlikely, due to all the attention and scrutiny the Mormon church faced after Proposition 8.

“I would be very surprised if the Mormon Church gives anymore,” Jacobs told TAI. “I think they’re done.”

(Earlier this year TAI was told by a documentary filmmaker covering Maine’s gay-marriage battle in 2009 – which NOM was involved in – that Mormon money had been promised but not delivered to the campaign trying to ban same-sex marriage.)

Wolfson said he believes the “Roman Catholic hierarchy” is NOM’s primary funding source.

TAI contacted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the LDS church – neither organization responded to requests for comment.

Over the years, NOM has received extensive funding from evangelical Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, and NOM Exposed has linked NOM to the anti-gay-marriage grant-making groups the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Arlington Group.

NOM’s charitable arm

In 2010, the NOM Education Fund reported raising about $1.3 million and spending $1.4 million. Eight anonymous contributions were reported – ranging from $30,000 to $500,000 – for a total of about $971,000 – 75 percent of the NOM Education Fund’s total reported contributions that year.

The group reported spending its money primarily on grants to anti-same-sex-marriage organizations ($345,733), including Stand for Marriage DC, the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, and the Iowa Family Policy Center; fundraising ($153,693); and “other expenses” ($994,793).

Groups with 501(c)3 status are, under IRS rules, prohibited from explicitly endorsing candidates for public office. Last year, The Washington Independent reported that the Ruth Institute’s President Jennifer Morse was publicly endorsing unsuccessful California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, in potential violation of IRS rules.

No specific mention is made of the Ruth Institute in the NOM Education Fund’s disclosure to the IRS; though, as TAI noted above, NOM’s 501 (c) 4 reported Morse’s salary as an organizational expense.

The future of NOM

Earlier this year, in supporter emails, on its blog, and in advertisements, NOM appeared to be energized by a last-minute derailment of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. However, the passage of marriage equality in New York, the overturning of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, NOM President Brian Brown being laughed at for his arguments against gay marriage on a Fox show, and the revelation that NOM doctored and misrepresented images to inflate opposition to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire have resulted in more urgent messages from the NOM camp.

A fundraising email from Brown from early November begins:

Dear Marriage Supporter, I’m beginning to worry.

We have won victory after victory for marriage. California. Maine. Maryland. Rhode Island. Gay marriage is inevitable? Apparently, voters across America missed that memo. But NOM is fighting on so many fronts right now our resources are being spread thin. [Emphasis NOM's.]

Then Brown accuses the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” of being supported by “massive contributions from the usual Hollywood celebrities, huge foundations and wealthy billionaires. What do we have? Millions of Americans just like you, friend.” [Emphasis NOM's.]

It’s essentially the same argument that the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” use against NOM. HRC, the country’s largest LGBT-rights lobby group, in fiscal year 2009 (PDF) reported $21.4 million in contributions and grants to its political arm. The organization reported 256 contributions above $5,000 – most of them below $20,000.

“There certainly are people opposed to the freedom to marry [for gay and lesbian couples], but they are not the people that support NOM.” Wolfson said. “NOM is supported by a small group of secret donors; we’ve seen no evidence o the contrary. And they are a threat. Not so much NOM, but the anti-gay founders behind NOM. Money still is power.”

Karger told TAI he wants the federal government to investigate NOM’s finances and political activities. Though the political activist himself could be subject to scrutiny, depending on who occupies the White House in 2012. This summer, GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum signed NOM’s “Marriage Pledge,” which calls for the creation of a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters.”

“I’ve called for an investigation of NOM from day one,” Karger said. “And I’ll continue – until I’m gone – to call for an investigation. We need the federal government to look into their activities.”

NOM 990 2010 501c4

NOM 990 2010 501c3

(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons/AMagill)

A couple of months ago, a federal health agency announced it would require health insurance companies to cover contraception as preventive care — which would remove co-payments. A final decision on whether the administration will stand its ground and keep the policy is expected some time this week.

Women’s health advocates have feared the president will capitulate to the demands of some of the biggest opponents to the policy: Catholic bishops.

The bishops’ demands have ranged from asking the policy be stricken “in its entirety” to asking that the rule allow a broad exemption for religious objectors. Catholic leaders have said the existing exemption is “too limited” and might leave out Catholic hospitals.

Women’s group — including NOW — are asking the president to not give in.

According to NOW’s recent press release:

The National Organization for Women calls on the Obama administration to stand up for women and not give in to demands from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that would deny birth control coverage for millions of women. The bishops have been lobbying the administration to expand a religious exemption that would allow a broad range of religiously affiliated organizations, such as colleges and hospitals, to take contraception coverage away from women who rely on them for health insurance. NOW calls on the president to remove the exemption altogether.

…

A recent poll by Thomson Reuters-NPR Health found that 77 percent of Americans believe private medical insurance should provide birth control without co-pays. Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women have used contraception, including 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute. Yet this important health benefit could be lost for more than a million women and their families, and the decision will soon be made by the Obama administration.

The ill-considered proposed refusal clause in the women’s birth control benefit undermines women’s access to basic health care. NOW urges President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to say ‘yes’ to contraceptive coverage for all women and ‘no’ to the bishops’ relentless attempts to deny women their rights.

The decision, which is still being considered before it is finally included, would require all health insurers to provide contraceptive services without co-payments. The decision includes an exemption for religious employers. However, Catholic groups believe that the exemption is “too limited” and would thus require many Catholic groups to provide services that are banned by the Catholic Church.

Catholic bishops and some Catholic groups have been condemning the decision. They have  asked that the exemption be open to more objectors, or that the decision be stricken in its entirety.

Now, the St. Petersburg Times reports that if the decision is not changed, Bishop Robert Lynch says ”the Diocese of St. Petersburg would drop health insurance for its approximately 2,300 employees, and instead give them money to find coverage themselves.”

Officials in the diocese believe that they would be one of the groups that would not be included in the exemption.

According to the Times, “Frank Murphy, spokesman for the Diocese of St. Petersburg, said church operations such as Catholic Charities serve people of all faiths. And not all employees are Catholic, including many teachers at diocesan schools.”

The Times reports:

“For the first time in my adult life, I foresee the possibility of some form of civil disobedience, and I am extremely uncomfortable at even the hint of such a thing,” Lynch said during Wednesday’s annual Red Mass at Tampa’s Sacred Heart Church, attended by two dozen judges and about 300 lawyers.

…

On his blog (blogs.dosp.org/bishoplynch) Lynch noted that diocese employees have a “generous” health care plan, one that does not cover contraceptives, the “morning-after” pill, or drugs like Viagra.

He also expressed fear that because the diocese is self-insured, that might disqualify it from the religious exemption. But a federal health official said Thursday that isn’t the case.

In his homily, which appears in full at his blog site, Lynch told the jurists of conflicts between church teachings and the laws of the land. “I have such a fear at this moment in time,” he said.

“As employers, we would be forced to provide in health care plans services and procedures which clearly are contrary to our beliefs and teachings,” he said.

“If they fail to shift in their present positions,” he said of federal officials, “then 2,300 employees of the Diocese of St. Petersburg will lose their health care coverage which they have come to treasure and rely upon.”

For many women, steep co-payments levied by their health insurers have deterred them from purchasing family planning services such as birth control pills in the past, a problem exacerbated by the country’s economic troubles.

A recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll conducted by Public Opinion and Survey Research Program showed that two-thirds of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services.

Furthermore, according to research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, about “98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.”

According to the study (.pdf), 1.5 million women rely on birth control pills for exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. The study also found “that more than half (58 percent) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42 percent use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons”:

The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%). Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.

Menstrual-related disorders and irregular periods are particularly common during adolescence. Not surprisingly, the study found that teens aged 15–19 who use the pill are more likely to do so for non-contraceptive purposes (82%) than for birth control (67%). Moreover, 33% of teen pill users report using oral contraceptive pills solely for noncontraceptive purposes.

“It is well established that oral contraceptives are essential health care because they prevent unintended pregnancies,” said study author Rachel K. Jones. “This study shows that there are other important health reasons why oral contraceptives should be readily available to the millions of women who rely on them each year.”

Through the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration announced it was requiring health care insurers to cover contraception services without any co-payments. For many women, steep co-pays have deterred them from purchasing family planning services in the past, a problem that has been exacerbated by the country’s economic troubles.

A recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll conducted by Public Opinion and Survey Research Program showed that two-thirds of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services.

However, anti-abortion groups (mostly Catholic) have tried to block the implementation of this new mandate. There was a recent congressional hearing held to discuss the effect the new requirement would have on religious groups.

The Associated Press reports Avila stepped down on Friday and that the Catholic Bishops accepted his resignation. Avila’s column sparked fierce criticism of the Catholic Church, prompting Avila and the Boston Pilot to retract the column and offer an apology.

Avila wrote in his column:

Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.

In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture’s account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God’s handiwork.

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops were correct to accept Avila’s resignation,” said John Becker, director of communications and development for Truth Wins Out, a national LGBT equality group. “There is no place for such extremism and Avila’s poisonous remarks served to further alienate LGBT Americans from the Catholic Church.”

Through the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Department Health and Human Services was tasked with selecting which types of health care insurers will have to cover as preventative care. Insurers would not be able to levy co-payments on such services.

At the request of a medical group, Health and Human Services included contraception in its list of preventative care. Even though the department also included an exemption to this requirement for religious employers, religious groups (largely Catholic) have claimed the exemption is “too limited.”

The discussion surrounding whether the new health law mandate threatens conscience rights was the subject of today’s committee hearing. Catholic groups, including pro-reproductive health groups such as Catholics for Choice, were invited to testify.

The Hill reports:

Republicans condemned the health law’s coverage expansion, calling it an unprecedented government intrusion on the religious freedoms of employers and insurers. Democrats countered that the GOP wants to put the “conscience rights” of employers before those of patients.

…

“When the healthcare law was being debated last Congress, the proponents adamantly refuted claims that this would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system,” said Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health. “Now, we have the federal Department of Health and Human Services forcing every single person in this country to pay for services that they may morally oppose.

“Whether one supports or opposes the healthcare law, we should universally support the notion that the federal government should be prohibited from taking coercive actions to force people to abandon their religious principles.”

However, other religious groups disagree. Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice said expanding conscience (or refusal) clauses are a burden on the women looking to access birth control services.

In his testimony to the congressional panel, O’Brien said:

Like many Catholics, I accept that conscience has a role to play in providing healthcare services, but recent moves to expand conscience protections beyond the simple right for individual healthcare providers to refuse to provide services to which they personally object go too far. Increasingly, demands and regulatory proposals attempt to grant that option to an institution or any individual along the spectrum of care, funding and coverage. It is incredible to suggest that a hospital or an insurance plan has a conscience. Granting institutions, or entities like these, legal protection for the rights of conscience that properly belongs to individuals is an affront to our ideals of conscience and religious freedom.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently criticized pushback against the recent decision requiring insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays.

“Forty percent of unplanned pregnancies end in those women seeking abortions,” Sebelius said during a luncheon hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Wouldn’t you think that people who want to reduce the number of abortions would champion the cause of widely available, widely affordable contraceptive services? Not so much.”

For many women, steep co-pays have deterred them from purchasing family planning services in the past, a problem that has been exacerbated by the country’s economic troubles.

A recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll conducted by Public Opinion and Survey Research Program showed that two-thirds of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services.

The Washington Post reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union sued, and [Health and Human Services] officials said they made a policy decision to award the grants to agencies that would refer women for those services.

The bishops conference is threatening legal action and accusing the administration of anti-Catholic bias, which HHS officials deny.

The fight further sours an already difficult relationship between the government and some Catholics over several issues. The bishops fiercely oppose the administration’s decision in February to no longer defend the federal law barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. Dozens of Catholic groups also have objected in recent weeks to a proposed HHS mandate — issued under the health-care law — that would require private insurers to provide women with contraceptives without charge.

Last week, a Catholic political action committee released an ad asking President Obama to “meet with Catholic leaders to discuss compromise” on religious conscience laws. The ad accused the president of not seeking “common ground” with religious groups.

Catholic groups have asked to be exempt from federal mandates non-religious groups have to follow, particularly when it comes to birth control and abortion services. They are only asked to these follow mandates when they receive taxpayer funding.

For years, powerful groups such as the Conference of Bishops have won their fights for exclusion — but lately the feds are reconsidering some programs.

The Post reports that the Bishops feel they are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs, but “HHS officials denied any bias and pointed out that Catholic groups have received at least $800 million in HHS funding to provide social services since the mid-1990s, including $348 million to the bishops conference”:

One of those grants, $19 million to aid foreign refugees in America, was awarded to the bishops three days after the anti-trafficking contract expired Oct. 10.

“There wasn’t an intention to go out and target anybody,’’ said George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families. “Nobody has ownership of a contract.’’ He added that the agency “followed standard procedure.”

The Bishops have released papers in the past few months accusing the federal government of exhibiting antagonism toward religion and displaying a “distorted view of sexuality,” as well as claiming that Health and Human Services’ birth control mandate violates the First Amendment.

According to the organization’s website, the Catholic Advocate PAC “engages and encourages faithful Catholics to actively participate in the political process to support elected officials and policies that remain consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

The group is affiliated with the Catholic Advocate Candidate Fund, which “helps accomplish [their] mission to have Members of Congress voting 100% pro-life and pro-family consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is among the handful of endorsed candidates by the group.

The website featuring the group’s petition says that

shortly after taking office, President Obama spoke about the importance of cooperation and seeking the common good on sensitive religious issues. But unfortunately, no other president in American history has so blatantly chipped away at our religious liberties. This is a religious liberty issue that affects all Americans of faith. Will you sign the petition telling the president to live up to his promises, and stop trampling on our religious liberties? Demand that President Obama live up to his promises delivered at Notre Dame.

The one minute video ad that is also part of the campaign features President Obama saying he would seek “common ground” with religious groups and honor religious conscience laws. The ad claims that neither has been done.

The announcer in the ad says:

After President Obama’s speech calling for cooperation in order to reach “common ground,” the current and former presidents of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reached out to him to discuss their concerns.

He ignored them.

…

[Obama's] administration has “rescinded most of a federal regulation designed to protect those who refuse to provide care they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds.”

He also pledged to veto the “Protect Life Act,” a bill Catholic bishops said would apply conscience rights on abortion to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

President Obama preaches “Common Ground,” but refuses to meet with Catholic leaders to discuss compromise.

Catholics across the country should demand that President Obama live up to his promises delivered at Notre Dame.  Go to Catholic Advocate dot com and join the nationwide effort to protect religious liberty in America.

Health advocates and Obama were against the “Protect Life Act” because they said the bill would endanger the health of women by cutting funding (even through private insurance) for medically necessary abortions.

The bill also aimed to expand the Hyde Amendment to private insurance plans because some could receive public dollars through the 2010 health care reform law. Women’s health advocates have said the Hyde Amendment has consistently burdened low-income women and minorities seeking legal abortions. The provision the bishops most supported in the bill would have allowed a doctor to not administer an abortion (even to save a woman’s life) if he or she objected on moral or religious grounds. The bill passed in the House but Obama vowed to veto it if it made it to his desk.

The ad also sources a letter (.pdf) sent to the Catholic bishops in September 2011 from Timothy M. Dolan, the president of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In the letter, Dolan announces the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty that would “work closely with national organizations, charities, ecumenical and interreligious partners and scholars to form a united and forceful front in defense of religious freedom in our nation.”

Dolan asks that immediate work be done to address a “list [of] new threats to religious liberty that have arisen.”

Dolan’s list includes:

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued regulations that would mandate the coverage of contraception (including abortifacients) and sterilization in all private health insurance plans. There is an exception for certain religious employers, but, to borrow from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President of The Catholic Health Association, it would cover only the ―parish housekeeper. And the exception does nothing to protect insurers or individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate.

The list also included opposition to laws passed regarding marriage for same-sex couples and other policies that promote contraception use to prevent HIV and other infections.

In the letter, Dolan says the President Obama had not responded to letters expressing his dissatisfaction with recent policy decisions that stray from church policy.

While the Obama administration did include a conscience clause in its decision making birth control more available to the women who need it, groups like the U.S. bishops were not pleased and have actively lobbied for a change in policy.

The chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, accused the federal government of exhibiting antagonism toward religion and has displaying a “distorted view of sexuality.” The bishops have also claimed Health and Human Services decision violates the First Amendment.

Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, has pointed out that the majority of Catholic women have not been convinced by the Church’s hard line on birth control.

“What’s really going on,” O’Brien said, “is that they have failed to convince Catholics in their own churches. So, [the Bishops] have to go through political lobbying to stop Catholics from using contraception.”

Polling found that 66 percent of Americans agree with the federal government’s recent decision to include birth control in its list of preventive services. According to  research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, about “98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.”

According to a press release from the group:

To ensure that the Diocese understands exactly what is at stake in Bishop Zurek’s decision to “suspend” Fr. Pavone from pro-life work outside of Amarillo, CBR’s picket signs will include large, color photos of aborted babies.

Pickets will be conducted at many of the Diocese’s forty-nine parish churches, with special emphasis on St. Laurence and the nine other parish churches in the City of Amarillo, proper. Parental warning signs will be posted as a courtesy near targeted churches, to caution parents of small children that they may wish to attend Mass elsewhere. Demonstrations will also be staged at Holy Cross Academy to encourage students to contact Bishop on Fr. Pavone’s behalf.

Although Bishop Zurek is actively attempting to discourage Catholics from donating to Priests For Life, we will not stoop to any reciprocal attempt to discourage Catholics from donating to the Diocese of Amarillo.

Street pickets will be supplemented by the operation of a fleet of large billboard trucks bearing signs which will also depict aborted babies and urge Amarillo Catholics to tactfully contact Bishop Zurek to request that he “FREE FR. FRANK!” The trucks will be accompanied by aircraft towing large aerial billboards which will also bear aborted baby imagery and exhortational text messages.

These pickets will continue until Bishop Zurek releases Fr. Pavone from what amounts from ecclesiastical “house arrest.”

The group claims that Zurek “has chosen to convert a routine personnel conflict into a proxy for the wider ideological war being fought over the Church’s response to abortion.”

In a letter addressing the allegations against Pavone, Zurek explains that Priests for Life “has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight.”

Catholics for Choice, a religious abortion rights advocacy group, said in a statement that “Pavone has used his own image and personality to promote his cause, posting large photographs of himself in a wide variety of materials, especially outdoor advertising”:

He often described himself in terms reminiscent of a touring performer or campaigning candidate for office. In a May 2006 letter to supporters, the PFL leader basked in the “commitment and enthusiastic response” of his fans. He added that the “dynamic” of his interaction with supporters—hence, not his commitment to the cause—was “what drew me into full-time pro-life ministry.”

Catholics for Choice also mentioned that “in 2007, [Pavone] transferred [Priests for Life] to its current location in Amarillo, where an attempt to start a seminary for priests was abandoned due to a lack of recruits—despite the organization’s $10.8 million budget.”

Operation Rescue, has also announced it is standing behind Pavone.