Catholic leaders have blasted President Barack Obama’s (pictured) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for deciding to press ahead regardless of religious objections with its plan to force church-affiliated organisations to give their workers coverage of contraception, including abortifacients, as part of their health insurance plans.

The policy has also been criticised by The Washington Post.

In an editorial yesterday, The Washington Post said that the significance of the new health-care law was “that the federal government will for the first time require all employers to provide insurance coverage for their workers — in other words, to spend their own money to help underwrite this coverage — or, in many cases, to pay a penalty”. 

It said: “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views.”

On Friday, President Obama’s HHS announced it would not expand a religious exemption for employers who object to a requirement that insurance plans cover contraception as part of “preventative services.” The policy requires free coverage for sterilisation and contraception, including some drugs that can cause abortions.

The current policy provides a religious exemption only for organisations that employ and primarily serve members of their own faith and that have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had been pressing for an exemption for employers that oppose artificial birth control and abortion-inducing drugs on religious grounds. But many other Catholic leaders, who supported President Obama for his stance on economic and other issues, have also joined in the attack on the Administration’s stance.

University of Notre Dame president Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., said he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision, saying it will place many religious organisations 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,” he said on Friday, in the wake of the announcement that the HHS planned to press ahead with its proposal.

Fr Jenkins received widespread criticism in 2009 for his decision to allow President Obama to give the prestigious Commencement address at Notre Dame, despite his strong support for abortion.

Fr. Jenkins called 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.”

Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit also attacked the decision, saying that Administration’s decision amounted to trampling on the “inalienable rights guaranteed in our country’s founding documents”.

He said: “Where is the ‘liberty’ in a decision to intrude on freedom of conscience? The Constitution speaks of ‘freedom of religion,’ not ‘freedom from religion’.”

The Department of Health and Human Services is forcing insurers and insurance purchasers to “choose whether or not to violate their moral and religious beliefs,” he added.

The archbishop urged lawmakers to defend the rights of citizens against a “truly unconscionable” government mandate.

Sr. Carol Keehan, D.C., president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, said her organisation is “disappointed” that HHS did not broaden its definition of a religious employer.

“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” she said.

Sr. Keehan, who broke from the U.S. bishops to support the health care legislation which authorised the HHS action, said the challenge religious groups face under the bill is “unresolved.” She said there is a need for an “effective national conversation” on the “appropriate conscience protections” in the U.S., which she said has “always respected the role of religions.”

“Having recognised the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it. requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money against its religious principles “does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views.”