Abortion factor in grant denial reinforces need for conscience protections
- Dec 7, 2011 -
Clouds of controversy are forming over a top governmental agency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known for making overtures recently that curtail freedoms, is under fire once again, this time over its recent decision to deny a faith-based relief organization a grant to aid victims of labor and sex trafficking. With the issue of abortion a key factor in the decision, based on a congressional committee’s investigation, the need to enact strong protections for those who hold deep convictions on the sanctity of human life is becoming all the more clear.
In 2006, HHS awarded the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services a five-year $19 million grant for the express purpose of aiding those who have been victimized by human traffickers. The grant program had been established as part of an anti-trafficking law supported by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, which has since been reauthorized.
But in September the relief group’s grant renewal request was denied. At issue is HHS’ stated reason: the group’s refusal to support abortion services as part of assistance to trafficked persons. Of deeper concern among pro-lifers in general, however, is a larger theme playing out: efforts to strip away the sacred rights of religious liberty and conscience for organizations and individuals, one case at a time.
Based on an HHS memo obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the federal agency rejected the Catholic group’s request for a grant renewal because of its “failure to offer trafficking victims all of the services and referrals delineated in the program objectives, in conjunction with other organizations’ willingness and ability to do so.” More specifically, those services and referrals to which the Catholic group objected were for abortion and contraceptives.
Now the hot water in which HHS finds itself is reaching a boil. On Dec. 1, the House watchdog committee, which has launched an investigation of the action, held a hearing to look further into the decision. Some panel members cited a lack of transparency.
Through its investigation, the committee found, among other things, that the grant awards process was “delayed for months while the agency struggled to find ways to inject new criteria into the process,” according to Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), “and—of great concern—the judgment of experienced, career-level professionals was discarded when political appointees chose to overrule transparent decision-making.”
Notably, the group’s effectiveness was not in question—it scored second highest in an HHS review of the six applicants qualified for review, three of which were awarded grants.
The rationale for HHS’ decision is a cautionary testimonial. If the government chooses to discriminate against one group today on the basis of conscience, it can apply the same conscience-restricting threshold to any number of groups or individuals tomorrow.
And storm clouds surrounding HHS were well in formation just ahead of its September decision. In August, HHS announced a proposed rule stating that, beginning next August, private health insurance plans will be required to provide coverage with no co-pay for all contraceptives for women approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That includes so-called emergency contraceptives such as Plan B and ella, both of which can cause abortions. Compounding the issue, the proposed HHS mandate provides a very narrow religious exemption. As a result, countless pro-life and pro-family groups would not qualify.
With such violations raining down at alarming rates, the need to reinforce and strengthen existing conscience protections is clear. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, or ANDA (H.R. 361), would do just that. Currently pending in Congress, ANDA would codify the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, a pro-life rider included annually in appropriations bills since 2005 to bar the government from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.” ANDA would also ensure that groups or individuals who are discriminated against on matters of conscience are afforded legal recourse in court.
The best scenario for passing ANDA this year is ensuring that it remains in a final version of an appropriations package that Congress must pass by the end of next week. Support for the measure is strong. Recently, 125 representatives signed a letter urging House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) to include the measure in an appropriations package this year. Still, it remains to be seen whether Congress has the will to push ANDA across the finish line.
To be sure, ANDA is not a cure-all against future instances of discriminatory abuses. But it’s the surest way to break up the clouds of conscience violations hanging over HHS and elsewhere that threaten to rain down a torrent of conscience violations on pro-lifers in the days ahead.
If you agree, please contact your representative and senators and urge them to include the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act in the FY2012 appropriations bill.