Bishop Lori responds to America editors

In their March 5 editorial "Policy not Liberty," the editors of America magazine lambasted the American bishops for rejection President Obama's "accommodation" on the HHS mandate as inadequate. Bishop Lori, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, has responded to their editorial. An excerpt:

" Oh, and as Detective Colombo used to say: “Just one more thing.” It’s the comment in the editorial about when we bishops are at our best. Evidently, it’s when we speak generalities softly and go along to get along, even though for the first time in history the federal government is forcing church entities to provide for things that contradict church teaching. Maybe Moses wasn’t at his best when he confronted Pharaoh. Maybe the Good Shepherd was a bit off his game when he confronted the rulers of his day.

But those are just details." 

Read his full piece here.

" Oh, and as Detective Colombo used to say: “Just one more thing.” It’s the comment in the editorial about when we bishops are at our best. Evidently, it’s when we speak generalities softly and go along to get along, even though for the first time in history the federal government is forcing church entities to provide for things that contradict church teaching. Maybe Moses wasn’t at his best when he confronted Pharaoh. Maybe the Good Shepherd was a bit off his game when he confronted the rulers of his day.

But those are just details."

No Cooperation with Evil

Our Myser Fellow, Prof. Randy Smith, contributed yesterday to "The Catholic Thing" blog, with his article "No Cooperation with Evil," concerning the HHS contraception mandate.

An excerpt: "Those who want you to violate your conscience will first seek to misinform your conscience, and then try to deaden its voice."


Read the full article here.

Here We Are

Prof. Helen Alvare of George Mason University has written a letter in response to Nancy Pelosi's charge that women do not support the Church's teaching on contraception. Her letter was signed by hundreds of other women and published by National Review Online. View the text with signatures here. This is the text of her letter:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON'T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable -- but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking "women's health" in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of "costless" birth control with "equality," note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

Helen M. Alvaré JD Associate Professor of Law George Mason University (VA)*

Kim Daniels JD Former Counsel Thomas More Law Center (MD)  (*Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. They do not indicate institutional support.)

Why the Pill is not good for women

Erika Bachiochi, a speaker at Notre Dame's recent Edith Stein Project, co-authored an article with Catherine Pakaluk on why "The Pill is Not Good for Women" for the National Review Online today. An excerpt:

"The Pill, together with abortion as backup, appeared to provide full insurance against pregnancy risks. But as economists well know, full insurance tends to induce greater risk-taking: As people perceive sex to be safer, they pursue more of it. This applies especially to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable to the risks of unwanted pregnancy: the young, the unmarried, and those unable to care for a child."

Read the full article here.

Unacceptable Compromise

Unacceptable

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.  It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage.  For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers.  More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual.  They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.  It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer.  What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.  This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty.  The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey

President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin

Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

EWTN Files Suite to Block Contraception Mandate

EWTN filed a law suite today in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, AL seeking to declare the federal government's contraception mandate as unconstitutional.   EWTN is the first lay Catholic organization to challenge the HHS mandate.  

"'We had no other option but to take this to the courts,' said [Michael]Warsaw, [EWTN's president]. 'Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health-insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable.'"

Read more in the National Catholic Register

Carter Snead in WSJ

Future Director of the Center for Ethics and Culture Carter Snead, of Notre Dame's Law School, and Princeton University Professor Robert P. George have written an article that was published in today's Wall Street Journal. They analyze last week's struggle over funding between the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood. An excerpt:

"The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.

The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages."

Read the full article here.

Contraception debate rages on campus

Notre Dame's official student newspaper, the Observer, has been printing a series of Viewpoint letters to the editor concerning the HHS mandate that will force Notre Dame and other Catholic institutions to provide coverage of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs through its health insurance. Today we are proud to feature a letter written by one of the students in our Integritas undergraduate formation program. It was published in the February 6 edition of the Observer:

I would like to reply to Notre Dame Right to Life officers' Jan. 31 letter, "Contraception and Dignity," touched off when it sternly condemned the use of artificial contraception. I am going to argue on behalf of the original letter's position by responding to some of the arguments made by "Contraception and Dignity," Feb. 3.

Emily Bienek, Joel Moore and John Galeziewski argued contraception can mitigate the harmful consequences of domestic violence, rape and drunken hook-ups. This argument fails because these problems cannot be solved by contraception. If women are really so afraid of being assaulted by friends, boyfriends, husbands and strangers they feel they must be taking contraception at all times to prevent unplanned pregnancies, our society suffers from a far greater problem than a lack of reproductive choice.

I would rather make the world safe from violence against women than hand out birth control pills to potential rape victims. Similarly, the fact that many Notre Dame students regularly get so drunk that they cannot control their behavior contributes to a host of problems of which unplanned pregnancies are only one. We can better resolve that issue by helping students drink responsibly than by constantly struggling to reduce the harm they do to themselves and others when they are drunk.

Bienek, Moore, Galeziewski and Anne Reser all made the point artificial contraception helps women by allowing them to regulate how many children they have and when they have them. This allows women to pursue other goals before starting a family and to responsibly regulate the size of their families once they have them. Abstinence before marriage and NFP during marriage can do the same things. Researchers at the University of Heidelberg in Germany found NFP is as effective as "the pill" at preventing conception, and (forgive the cliché) abstinence remains the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

John Galeziewski suggests NFP, even when properly used, is no different than other forms of contraception. On the contrary, NFP does not upset the delicate chemical balance within a woman's body in ways that could damage her health, as hormonal contraceptives do.

It also does not fundamentally change the nature of the sexual act by chemically or mechanically eliminating one of its key functions, something all forms of artificial birth control do as well. Finally, NFP makes sex more intimate for couples that use it by giving them a greater understanding of the natural reproductive process and how to work within it to plan their families.

Anne Reser deplores the fact "there are still people who believe that a woman's dignity is somehow tied to her ability and desire to have children." I believe she has misunderstood "Contraception and Dignity" on this issue. At the risk of putting words in the authors' mouths, I believe the people behind "Contraception and Dignity" would not call a woman's reproductive ability the sole source of her worth. Rather, they would assert that a woman derives her dignity from all of the various and wonderful gifts God has bestowed on her by making her in His image, and that her ability to create and nurture life within her own body is merely one of these gifts, though it is an awe-inspiring and very important one.

Women do not need artificial birth control to protect themselves, plan their families or affirm their dignity. They can avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs by abstaining from sex before marriage and regulate the births of their children within marriage by using NFP. They can better respect themselves by embracing their ability to bear children as an important part of their nature than they can by denying the beauty and significance of one of the greatest abilities of any human person, which they alone happen to possess. The only thing women (and men) "need" artificial contraception for is to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want. Modern society thinks sex should be like television: entertainment on demand. Those of us who believe that sex is a total, loving and fruitful gift from one person of incommensurable dignity to another believe sex was meant for something more.

Elliott Pearce
junior
Knott Hall
Feb. 3

Komen Foundation caves; restores PP funding

We are disappointed to report that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has caved into pressure from Planned Parenthood supporters and restored their funding to Planned Parenthood. They have amended their grant policy to allow funding of organizations that are under congressional investigation as long as that investigation is not criminal in nature. Read their press release here.

Komen Foundation Defunds Planned Parenthood

The breast cancer research foundation Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced that it will no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings services. The Komen foundation had been providing Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, with significant grants since 2005. The grants have been rescinded due to a new rule the Komen foundation adopted preventing them from funding organizations under congressional investigation. Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation for how it spends and reports money. Read the full story here in the New York Times. You can thank the Komen foundation for the work they do to promote women's health in a way that no longer supports the destructive work of Planned Parenthood by emailing news@komen.org.

Cancer-stricken teen mom dies for her baby

Jenni Lake, 17, was diagnosed with cancer in October 2010. Seven months later, while undergoing chemotherapy, she discovered she that was pregnant.  Jenni was given a choice: proceed with treatment and endanger the life of her child or end her treatment and risk losing her own life.  Jenni courageously chose to discontinue chemotherapy and save her child.  She gave birth to a healthy boy in November 2011 and passed away two weeks later. Lifesite News recounts her story.

An excerpt:

"After the delivery, she told the nurse, 'I'm done. I did what I was supposed to do. My baby is going to get here safe.'"

Read the full story here.

Responses to Sebelius' decision on contraception

Catholic leaders nationwide have vocally responded to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision that religious institutions will have to provide contraception coverage in health plans for employees, a decision which violates the rights of conscience of many religious institutions and especially affects the Catholic Church. Here are some of their notable responses:

Cardinal-designate Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB, said “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairmen of the USCCB committee on pro-life activities said, “Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers. For example, under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics. Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?Health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not undermine that goal.”

Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins, CSC, said  “I am deeply disappointed in a decision by the administration that will place many religious organizations of all faiths in an untenable position. This unnecessary intervention by the government into religion disregards our nation’s commitment to the rights of conscience and the longstanding work of religious groups to help build a more compassionate society and vibrant democracy. I find that profoundly troubling on many levels. Moving forward, we call for a national dialogue among religious groups, government and the American people to reaffirm our country’s historic respect for freedom of conscience and defense of religious liberty.”


Robbie George, law professor at Princeton, said, "The Obama administration's abortifacient and contraception mandate is appalling, but I cannot claim to be surprised by it. In fact, I would have been surprised---indeed stunned---had the administration done anything significant to honor or protect the rights of Catholics and others on whose consciences the mandate will impose. In every area touching the sanctity of human life and issues of sexual morality, the Obama administration is aggressively prosecuting the agenda its critics predicted and its most ardent left-wing supporters hoped for. Those who are driving the train, including key administration officials who self-identify as members of the Catholic Church, have no regard for the ethical beliefs of Catholics and others when they are in conflict with left-liberal orthodoxy.  Their task, as they perceive it, is to fortify and expand the "right to abortion" and "sexual freedom" wherever they can.  They pursue this agenda with a religious zeal because, in fact, the ideology in which abortion is a "right" and "sexual freedom" is a core value is their religion. These beliefs are integral to their worldview. If, like Kathleen Sebelius, they happen to be Catholics, you can be assured that it won't be Catholic teaching, or the Judaeo-Christian ethic, that shapes their policies on issues of life and death and marriage and sexual morality; it will be liberal ideology---pure and simple---that does the shaping."

HHS refuses to expand religious exemption to contraception mandate

Earlier this year, Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, wrote a letter to Kathleen Sebilius, Health and Human Services Secretary for the Obama administration, making a plea for a wider religious exemption from the new laws requiring all employers to cover contraception in their health insurance plans for employees. That plea has fallen on deaf ears. The Obama administration has refused to modify its new rule requiring Notre Dame and religious educational institutions like it to provide coverage of contraceptives in all its health insurance plans. Religious institutions are being given until Aug. 1, 2013 to comply fully with the new mandate. Here is the full statement from the HHS:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 20, 2012

Contact: HHS Press Office (202) 690-6343

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible.  The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.  Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country. 

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.  We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.  We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.  And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

The Contraception Mandate

Notre Dame Law Professor Rick Garnett has a column in USA Today arguing that the mandate for contraception coverage in all new healthcare plans should be scrapped. The mandate violates the conscience rights of religious institutions who are opposed to contraception, abortion, and sterilization. An excerpt:

"It is true that the administration's proposed mandate includes an exemption for some religious employers, but it is so stingy as to be nearly meaningless. It does nothing for individuals or insurers, and it applies only to employers whose purpose is "the inculcation of religious values" and that hire and serve primarily those of the same religious faith. The vast majority of religious educational, social-welfare and health care organizations — not to mention the ministry of Jesus on earth — do not fit this crabbed definition.

The proposed exemption covers only inward-looking, members-only, religious-instruction organizations while excluding those that respond to the call to feed the hungry, care for the sick, house the homeless and share the good news with strangers. Religiously affiliated hospitals, charities and universities that serve people of other religions would be vulnerable. The exemption assumes that religion is only about belief and values, not service, sacrifice and engagement. It purports to accommodate religious believers, but it actually would confine their belief."

Read the full column here.

Carter Snead to speak at St. Thomas, MN

If you live in the Twin Cities, then you will have a chance to hear the Center's newly appointed Director, Carter Snead, speak on embryo rights and stem cell research at the University of St. Thomas, tomorrow, Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 4 p.m. Read the full announcement here.

Harvard vindicates Pope

Harvard researcher Edward Green has published a book entitled Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment Has Betrayed the Developing World in which he argues that condom distribution has had no clear impact on slowing the spread of AIDS in Africa, and that sexual fidelity has. Read more here.

Archbishop Gomez on religious freedom

Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles has an article in First Things today entitled "Defending our First Freedom" in which he raises concern that the US government is attempting to coerce Catholic relief organizations, such as the Migration and Refugees Services Agency and Catholic hospitals, into providing sterilizations and abortions, in contradiction to their mission.

An excerpt: "America’s founders understood that our democracy depends on Americans being moral and virtuous. They knew the best guarantee for this is a civil society in which individuals and religious institutions were free to live, act, and vote according to their values and principles. We need to help our leaders today rediscover the wisdom of America’s founding. And we need to help believers once more understand the vital importance of this “first freedom.” At stake are not just our liberties but also the future character of our democracy."

Read the full article here.

Breast Cancer: Awareness of ALL the risk factors

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month (and the month of the Rosary, and Respect Life month....) and campaigns to raise awareness and funds for breast cancer are everywhere. This MercatorNet article raises the question: why doesn't breast cancer awareness month raise awareness about all the risk factors for breast cancer...specifically the highly elevated risk for women who have used the contraceptive pill or had an abortion?

An excerpt:
"The pink awareness campaign is packaged, quite profitably, as an expression of genuine concern about women’s health. So surely it is reasonable to expect that such concern be matched by an accurate presentation of all the known risk factors, and by an insistence upon the very best corresponding prevention recommendations, right? After all, early detection measures such as screening are not nearly the same thing as solid prevention. Indefensibly, however, most awareness efforts fail to feature some factors known to reduce breast cancer risk: having children, avoiding induced abortions, and refraining from oral contraceptives (OC). True, there is no guaranteed way for anyone to dodge or develop breast cancer, but that does not mean there are not risk factors. Women today are delaying childbirth as never before, and having fewer children. Younger women are using OC for longer periods of time. And well over a fifth of all pregnancies in America end in abortion – hardly the rarity its “safe, legal and rare” advocates say it should be. If you suspect that these reproductive risk factors might have something to do with the 40 percent increase in the incidence of breast cancer over the last 30 years, you have spotted the elephant in the room."

Breast cancer has been one of the most prominent issues in women's health for years now; it is time to raise awareness of how abortions and oral contraceptives seriously harm women's health by elevating the risk for breast cancer. Read the full article here.

CUA President speaks out about conscience clauses

John Garvey, Notre Dame graduate and President of Catholic University of America, joins Father Jenkins in objecting to the HHS Rules requiring Catholic universities to provide contraceptive services that violate Catholic teaching. Read his Washington Post article here.


An excerpt:
"The regulations that HHS unveiled in August will require Catholic University to offer its students sterilization procedures and prescription contraceptives, including pills that act after fertilization to induce abortions. If we comply, as the law requires, we will be helping our students do things that we teach them, in our classes and in our sacraments, are sinful — sometimes gravely so. It seems to us that a proper respect for religious liberty would warrant an exemption for our university and other institutions like it."

President Jenkins' open letter to Secretary Sebelius

University of Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins, CSC, has written an important letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding the federal requirement for private insurance to cover all contraceptive (and some abortifacient) prescriptions, including sterilization procedures.  The "Interim Final Rules on Preventive Services" puts Catholic institutions like Notre Dame between a rock and a hard place, requiring us to cover something to which we are morally opposed, leaving us the choice between eliminating health insurance for students and employees or covering contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. Notre Dame would not be exempted under the conscience clause, because the conscience clause is the narrowest on record, excluding organizations like Notre Dame that serve and employ many non-Catholics.

An excerpt from Fr. Jenkins' compelling letter:

"Surely you know that we welcome the Administration's decision to require health plans to cover women's preventive services, such as critical screenings that will make preventive care more widely available and affordable. However, I'm sure you also understand that the inclusion in that mandate of contraceptive services that the Catholic Church finds morally objectionable makes it imperative that the Final Rule include broader conscience protections. In their current form, these regulations would require us to offer our students sterilization procedures and prescription contraceptives, including pills that act after fertilization to induce abortions, and to offer such services in our employee health plans. This would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the Church's moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the Church's social teaching. It is an impossible position."

We urge you to read the full text of the President's letter here and we commend the President for speaking out for Catholic institutions across the country who refuse to pit the Church's moral teaching against the Church's social teaching. His is a voice which needs to be heard in this debate, and we hope other university presidents and directors of Catholic hospitals will follow his lead in proclaiming the truth.