Belmont Abbey retains Becket Fund to defend against contraception ruling

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 11

Dr. William Thierfelder, President of Belmont Abbey College

Celebration of Vespers With Priests, Men and Women Religious, Seminarians and Ecclesial Movements: Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI
Celebration of Vespers with Bishops, priests, men and women religious, ecclesial and pastoral movements of Galilee in the upper Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth Address of the Holy Father
Contraceptive Failure Rate Chart
Moms' relationship crucial to teen daughter's sex decision

Belmont, N.C., Sep 11, 2009 / 06:03 am (CNA).- Defending itself from a U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission ruling that its refusal to provide contraceptive coverage was discriminatory against women, Belmont Abbey College has retained the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to appeal the decision.

After a faculty member discovered that contraception, abortion and voluntary sterilization were covered by the North Carolina college’s health care policy, the drugs and procedures were removed from the plan in December 2007. Though the state of North Carolina requires this coverage, it offers an exemption for religious institutions.

Reuben Daniels Jr., Director of the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charlotte District Office, issued an August 5 determination holding that that the denial of prescription contraception drugs constitutes discrimination based on gender “because only females take oral prescription contraceptives.”

“By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women,” he added, according to the Gaston Gazette.

The EEOC also ruled that the college retaliated against faculty members who filed charges with the Commission by identifying them by name in a letter to faculty and staff.

An initial March 2009 ruling found no evidence of gender discrimination. A press release from the Becket Fund claimed that the reversal came “presumably at the direction of the new administration in Washington.”

The Becket Fund joined the college’s legal team on Thursday.

Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, president and founder of the Becket Fund, said that President Barack Obama had “talked a good game” about protecting conscience in his speech at the University of Notre Dame.

“But when his administration went to Belmont Abbey, where the rubber meets the road, it was a very different story,” he said.

Hasson said that the case was a “very important part of a much larger battle” to protect “the good name of conscientious objection in America.”

“Ever since the Quakers, with their gentle stubbornness, persuaded a skeptical America that they should not have to swear oaths or serve in the military against their consciences, we have recognized that principled people are an asset to a society, not a liability,” he continued.

“The EEOC’s action is a direct assault on the principle of conscientious objection itself, and we will resist it vigorously,” Hasson stated.

Comments: 11

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Sheena
Atlanta, GA 10/07/2009 12:13 PM EST

David I think you are way off base here. By your logic, since my employer does not cover payment for vitamins, etc that are preventive measures, I should sue them to get it. Every Company has the right to its own bylaws. If you don't like them or want something else, go work someplace else or pay for it yourself.

Published by: David
Corpus Christi, Texas 09/17/2009 11:13 AM EST

What is ridiculous, Ben, is that Belmont Abbey College is the exact same college which went to the Federal Court of Appeals a few years ago and argued its heart out to get an official ruling that it was NOT RELIGIOUS so it could get state funds! Read the case yourself in any law library at 429 F.Supp. 871. Now it wants to claim it IS religious so it won't have to pay for employee benefits. When it can GET money for being NOT religious it claims to be not religious. When it has to PAY money for benefits if it is not religious it suddenly finds that it has a precious Catholic identity that cannot be even slightly compromised. I think you right to life types can find a more suitable and credible circumstance to base your case upon.

Published by: David
Corpus Christi, Texas 09/14/2009 07:51 PM EST

We won't know what is illegal or not until the courts make final decisions but consider the following, Jim. First, despite claims that the college secured an exemption from the state, the North Carolina Insurance Commission actually refused involvement, and that could still be litigated. The college is likely not in compliance with state law. In order to qualify for an exemption from the requirement to provide contraception the law requires that: "The entity employs primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity." Not the case with Belmont Abbey College where the majority of employees are not Catholic. This law has been tested in California and New York, which have similar laws, and the Catholic non profits involved lost both cases. The retaliation finding is based on a memo that the college sent to a big mailing list naming the employees who filed complaints with EEOC. EEOC prohibits that practice because it may intimidate victims from filing complaints. Since the EEOC has also ruled that the college has committed gender discrimination I think it fair to draw the conclusion I drew. Regardless, those are the facts and you can draw another conclusion if you wish. I wish Belmont Abbey well, wish they had stuck to the abortion issue, but this stand against oral contraception puts it at odds with most Catholics, their students, staff, and employees. Very sad. Divided against itself.

Published by: jim
austin, TX 09/12/2009 09:47 PM EST

Make up your mind David is it that a Catholic istitution is in violation a law or is it that they are supposedly imposing religious practices on employees who do not share them? They are a 501(b)(3) institution under Federal Law and it was determined at one point that they were not in violation of any state law. The EEOC's gender arguement is a joke

Published by: Matthew C. Masotti
West Windsor/NJ/USA 09/11/2009 06:45 PM EST

“By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women” - Reuben Daniels Jr., Director of the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charlotte District Office According Mr. Daniels's reasoning, only if there were such a thing as a male oral contraceptive could Belmont Abbey College deny the coverage. On the other hand, according to the same reasoning, the college must cover abortion. This is a big case.

Published by: David
Corpus Christi. Texas 09/11/2009 02:41 PM EST

Ben, it is not about the freedom not to "provide services the college deems immoral," it is about the claimed freedom to flagrantly violate state and federal laws that the president, but few employees, deem immoral. Does anyone have the right to choose what law to obey? What if they believed in human sacrifice or ritual child abuse? Does their conscience protect them from prosecution for murder or torture? Be careful what you wish for and be thankful that we have great freedom in this country. Our freedom is sometimes limited when one impinges on the freedom of others as has happened here. If you want protection from having other's religious practices imposed on you, the obligation follows that you must respect laws that may be in conflict in some ways with your practices, especially when they affect others.

Published by: Ben
Philly, PA 09/11/2009 12:39 PM EST

David, don't be ridiculous! The college is not preventing people from using contraception if they decide to or forcing them to do anything they don't want to, its only arguing that it should not be forced to provide them. Should a Jewish Hospital be forced to provide Ham Sandwiches at lunch if they don't want to? Don't misrepresent whats going on here. This IS all about the colleges freedom NOT to provide services it deems immoral.

Published by: Mike Mulcahy
Traverse City, MI 09/11/2009 12:34 PM EST

The Roman Catholic Bishops of the 60's and 70's, led by the Jesuit Universities that bought into Liberation Thology (Marxism) began to compromise with the Federal Government by accepting Federal Funding. Now all but a few Catholic Universities are as corrupt as the Federal Government. When a good man like Thierfelder tries to hold back the tide of evil that ensues, he should expect death at the hands of government. Let us pray that does not happen, but let us prepare for it. Our Leader showed us that death with honor is better than the alternative.

Published by: Deacon Sean Smith
Marion, IA 09/11/2009 12:13 PM EST

I think the analogies used by Mr. Neipert are actually backward. Rather than forcing the employee to do something, the case is about the company being forced to do something. I believe a more apt analogy would be the Catholic employee forcing the Jewish hospital to provide ham sandwiches on the menu. Hopefully we can agree that is a problem.

Published by: Jennifer
Denver/CO/USA 09/11/2009 09:22 AM EST

The trinity of myths which are sold to women on the "benefits" of contraception include the reassurances that they are liberating, safe, and convenient. The reality, as any woman who has done her homework can tell you, is that they are none of these things. In a misguided effort to "liberate" women from the tyranny of fertility, we've instead enslaved them to a cruel pharmaceutical industry who care much more profoundly about their own bottom line than about the disastrous effects their products wreak on the human body. These drugs are neither safe nor are they freeing, and any woman who has ever been prescribed an oral contraceptive can tell you in short order that they are far from convenient. Bravo for Belmont Abbey College for standing up for authentic women's rights.

Published by: David Neipert
Corpus Christi Texas 09/11/2009 07:50 AM EST

The college is not promoting religious freedom but rather promoting the "principle" that an employer should be able to impose religious practices on employees who do not share them. The overwhelming number of employees at Belmont Abbey College are either not Catholic or Catholic but who have no problem with oral contraceptives. It is a dangerous concept because if the college wins the legal principle will apply to other practices as well. For example it might permit a Jewish hospital to discriminate against a Catholic employee who brings a ham sandwich on the premises for lunch. Or allow a Muslim business owner to require female employees to wear burquas. The Becket Fund, which has defended Atheists, Militant Islamists, numerous convicts, and even the right of a person charged with animal cruelty to slaughter animals in the name of religion, is a strange bedfellow for a mainstream religion.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com